Full text of "Marihuana: a signal of misunderstanding; first report"

See other formats

t sif nal of
aisaaderstaadiag

irst Report
the National
3mmission on
'arihuana and
1 ug Abuse

Public Law 91-513
91st Congress, H. R. 18583
October 27, 1970

2n2ct

. r <

To amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws to provide Increased
research Into, and prevention of, drug abuse and drug dependence ; to provide
for treatment and rehabilitation cf drug abusers and drug dependent per-
sons ; and to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of
drug abuse.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled , That this Act may
be cited as the “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
Act of 1970”.

Part F — Advisory Commission

establishment of commission on marihuana and drug abuse

Sec. 601. (a) There is established a commission to be known as the
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (hereafter in this section
referred to as the “Commission”). Tne Commission shall be composed
of —

(1) two Members of the Senate appointed by the President of
the Senate;

(2) two Members of the House of Representatives appointed by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and

(3) nine members appointed by the President of the United
States.

At no time shall more than one of the members appointed under para-
graph (1), or more than one of the members appointed under para-
graph (2), or more than five of the members appointed under
paragraph (3) be members of the same political party.

(b) (1) The President shall designate one or the members of the
Commission as Chairman, and one as Vice Chairman. Seven members
of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may
conduct hearings.

(2) Members of the Commission who are Members of Congress or
full-time officers or employees of the United States shall serve without
additional compensation but shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence,
and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the duties
vested in the Commission. Members of the Commission from pri-
vate life shall receive $100 per diem while engaged in the actual per-
formance of the duties vested in the Commission, plus reimbursement
for travel, subsistence, and other necessary exi>enses incurred in the
performance of such duties.

(3) The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairman or at
the call of a majority of the members thereof.

(c) (1) The Commission shall have the power to appoint and fix
the compensation of such personnel as it deems advisable, without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter
51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title, relating to classifi-
cation and General Schedule pay rates.

(2) The Commission may procure, in accordance with the provi-
sions of section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, the temporary or
intermittent services of experts or consultants. Persons so employed
shall receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the Commission,
but not in excess of $75 per diem, including traveltime. While away
from his home or regular place of business in the performance of
services for the Commission, any such person may be allowed travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by
section 5703(b) of title 5, United States Code, for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently.

(3) The Commission may secure directly from any department or
agency of the United States information necessary to enable it to
carry out its duties under this section. Upon request of the Chairman
of the Commission, such department or agency shall furnish such
information to the Commission.

(d) (1) The Commission shall conduct a study of marihuana in-
cluding, but not limited to, the following areas:

(A) the extent of use of marihuana in the United States to
include its various sources, the number of users, number of
arrests, number of convictions, amount of marihuana seized, type
of user, nature of use;

(B) an evaluation of the efficacy of existing marihuana laws;

(C) a study of the pharmacology of marihuana and its im-
mediate and long-term effects, both physiological and psycho-
logical ;

(D) the relationship of marihuana use to aggressive behavior
and crime;

(E) the relationship between marihuana and the use of other
drugs; and

(F) the international control of marihuana.

(2) Within one year after the date on which funds first become
available to carry out this section, the Commission shall submit to
the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on its study
and investigation under this subsection which dhall include its recom-
mendations and such proposals for legislation and administrative
action as may be necessary to carry out its recommendations.

(e) The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive study and inves-
tigation of the causes of drug abuse and their relative significance.
The Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress such
interim reports as it deems advisable and shall within two years after
the date on which funds first become available to carry out this sec-
tion submit to the President and the Congress a final report which
shall contain a detailed statement of its findings and conclusions and
also such recommendations for legislation and administrative actions
as it deems appropriate. The Commission shall cease to exist sixty
davs after the final report, is submitted under this subsection.

(f) Total expenditures of the Commission shall not exceed
$1,000,000.

marihuana:
a signal of
misunderstanding ;

First Report
of the National
Commission on
Marihuana and
Drug Abuse

March 1972

■NX76

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 Price $1 (paper cover)
Stock Number 5266-0001

National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse

801 19tli Street IM.W.

Washington. D.C. 20000

March 22, 1972

To The President and Congress of the United States:

As Chairman of the National Commission on Marihuana

and Drug Abuse, I am pleased to submit to you our first year
Report in conformance with the mandate contained in Section
601 of Public Law 91-513, The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Pre-
vention and Control Act of 1970.

is an all-inclusive effort to present the facts as they are
known today, to demythologize the controversy surrounding
marihuana, and to place in proper perspective one of the most
emotional and explosive issues of our time. We on the Com-
mission sincerely hope it will play a significant role in
bringing uniformity and rationality to our marihuana laws,
both Federal and State, and that it will create a healthy
climate for further discussion, for further research and for
a continuing advance in the development of a public social
policy beneficial to all our citizens.

Whatever the facts are we have reported them. Wherever

the facts have logically led us, we have followed and used them
in reaching our recommendations. We hope this Report will be
a foundation upon which credibility in this area can be restored
and upon which a rational policy can be predicated.

This Report "Marihuana, A Signal of Misunder standi "

Chairman

The President

The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House

COMMISSION MEMBERS

The Honorable Raymond Philip Shafer, Chairman
Dana L. Farnsworth, M.D., Vice Chairman

Henry Brill, M.D.

The Honorable Tim Lee Carter, U.S. Representative, Kentucky
Mrs. J oan Ganz Cooney
Charles O. Galvin, S. J.D.

J ohn A. Howard, Ph. D.

The Honorable Harold E. Hughes, UJS. Senator, Iowa
The Honorable Jacob K. Javits, U.S. Senator, New York
The Honorable Paul G. Rogers, U.S. Representative, Florida
Maurice H. Seevers, M.D., Ph. D.

J. Thomas Ungerleider, M.D.

Mitchell Ware, J.D.

COMMISSION STAFF

Executive Director

Michael R . Sonnenreich

Deputy Director

Louis P. Bozzetti, M.D.

General Counsel

Anthony J. Roccograndi

Associate Directors

(Sociology)

(Public Affairs)

Ralph M. Susman
Michel D. Silva

Assistant Directors

(Legal) .

(Education)

(Criminology)

(Medical)

(Psychology)

Richard J. Bonnie
Emery F. Bacon
Lenore R. Kupperstein
JackD. Blaine, M.D.
Delores E. Mack, Ph. D.

Program Managers

( Government Regulations )
(Social Sciences)

(Law Enforcement)

Maryann L. Urban
Sol J. Silverman
Andrea Maharam Corcoran

Research Assistants

Suzanne Baumgartner
Glenn Gilman
John Helm
Paulette Hodges
Roberta Hollander

Peter J. Jessen
Evelyn Miller
Cynthia Rose
Carol Simons

Administrative Officer

Sally M. Boyd

Executive Secretary

Mary K. Ryan

Executive Assistant

Ethel McIntosh

Special Assistant

Basil M. Johnson

Support Staff

Cynthia Freeman

Sharon Payne

Judith Herbert

Mary Povich

Christine Jones

Cornelia Reister

Maryann M. Kowalczyk

Carlton Thompson

Theresa Lewis

Deloris West

Youth Consultants

Kathryn E. Aasen

Michael S. Pauley

John D. Arterberry

Andrew D. Pike

Bren L. Buckley

Ellen B. Rouse

Bobert Donfeld

Terri J. Siegel

Ann Frame

Richard L. Taylor

Eric A. Goldstein

Sarah C. Tefft

Terry J. Houle

Patricia A. Wallace

Milton J. Nichols

Dianne L. Williams

Student Researchers

Samuel H. Bayless

Daniel Lipman

Theodore M. Becker

Gerald F. Murray

Karen Bonnie

Joel S. Ostrow

Rick Cavish

Stephen H. Pugh

Richard D’Amico

Michael W. Russell

Linda Dubuclet

William Sharek

John T. Golden

Kenneth S. Starkey

James Kimble

Michael Stein

William King

Michael J. Valentine

Note. — The following staff members are no longer with the Commission:
Hugh E. Flaherty, Roy E. Kinsey, Maureen E. Biner, John Williams, Sherrill
Sasser, and Valerie Boyle.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Letter of Transmittal iii

Introduction 1

I. Marihuana and the Problem of Marihuana

Origins of the Marihuana Problem

Visibility

Perceived Threats

Symbolism

The Need for Perspective

Historical Perspective

Cultural Perspective

The Search for Meaning

Skepticism

The Limits of Rationality

Formulating Marihuana Policy

Scientific Oversimplification

Philosophical Oversimplification

Sociological Oversimplification

Legal Oversimplification

The Report

6
6
8
9

26
28

II. Marihuana Use and Its Effects

The Marihuana User

Demographic Characteristics

Patterns of Use

Profiles of Users

Experimental Users

Intermittent Users

Moderate and Heavy Users

Very Heavy Users

Becoming a Marihuana User

Parental Influence

Situational Factors and Behavioral Correlates

Social Group Factors

The Dynamics of Persistent Use

Becoming a Multidrug User

Epidemiologic Studies

Profiles and Dynamics

Sociocultural Factors

32
34
36

37
37

vii

The Effects of Marihuana on the User_ .

Botany and Chemistry

Factors Influencing Drug Effect

Dosage

Method of Use

Metabolism

Set and Setting

Tolerance

Reverse Tolerance

Duration of Use

Patterns of Use

Definition of Dependence

Effects Related to Pattern Use

Immediate Drug Effects

Subjective Effects

Body Function.

Mental Function

The Intoxicated State

Unpleasant Reactions

Anxiety States

Psychosis

Conclusions

Short-Term Effects

Long-Term Effects

Very Long-Term Effects

Tolerance and Dependence

General Body Function

Social Functioning

Mental Functioning

Motivation and Behavioral Change
Summary

III. Social Impact of Marihuana Use

Marihuana and Public Safety

Marihuana and Crime

The Issue of Cause and Effect

Marihuana and Violent Crime

Marihuana and Non-Violent Crime.

A Sociocultural Explanation

Marihuana and Driving

Marihuana, Public Health and Welfare.

A Public Health Approach

The Population at Risk

Confusion and Fact

Page

50
50

51
51

55
55
56)
U6

58
58

59
59
59
61
62
62
63

64
64
15

viii

Assessment of Perceived Risks

Lethality

Potential for Genetic Damage

Immediate Effects

Effects of Long-Term, Heavy Use

Addiction Potential

Progression to Other Drugs

Preventive Public Health Concerns

Summary

Marihuana and the Dominant Social Order

The Adult Marihuana User

The Young Marihuana User

The World of Youth

Why Society Feels Threatened

Dropping Out

Dropping Down

Youth and Radical Politics

Youth and the Work Ethic

The Changing Social Scene

Page

85
87
87

99
100
101

IV. Social Response to Marihuana Use

The Initial Social Response

The Change

The Current Response

The Criminal Justice System____

Law Enforcement Behavior

Law Enforcement Opinion

The Non-Legal Institutions

The Family

The Schools

The Churches

The Medical Community

Summary

The Public Response

103

106

109

110
112
116
117
117

121

V. Marihuana and Social Policy 127

Drugs in a Free Society 127

Drugs and Social Responsibility 128

A Social Control Policy for Marihuana 128

Approval of Use 129

Elimination of Use 129

Discouragement or Neutrality 131

Implementing the Discouragement Policy

The Role of Law in Effective Social Control.

Total Prohibition

Regulation

Partial Prohibition

Recommendations for Federal Law

Recommendations for State Law

Discussion of Federal Recommendations

Discussion of State Recommendations

Discussion of Potential Objections

A Final Comment

Addendum

Ancillary Recommendations

Legal and Law Enforcement Recommendations

Medical Recommendations

Other Recommendations

Page

135

138

169

170

Index of Contributors, Contractors and Consultants 180

introduction

This is the first of two Reports by the National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Public Law 91-513 requires that we
report to the President, Congress and the public initially on mari-
huana, and then on the broader issue of drug abuse in the United
States. The second Report will include a review of the marihuana
issue with particular attention to studies which have been conducted
in the interim.

In large measure, the marihuana issue is a child of the sixties, the
visual and somewhat pungent symbol of dramatic changes which
have permanently affected our nation in the last decade. Some have
argued that our mandate has placed the cart before the horse, and
that we should have focused first on the wider social issue and
then assessed marihuana’s impact on society within that context.
After much thought and investigation, we now believe that Congress
was wise in focusing this Commission’s attention first on marihuana.
By separating it from the rest of the drug controversy, we have been
better able to analyze the unique position marihuana occupies in our
society.

Our mandate was a broad one, covering, for example, the nature
and scope of use, the effects of the drug, the relationship of mari-
huana use to other behavior and the efficacy of existing law. Realizing
that marihuana had never before in the American experience been
the subject of a concentrated, authoritative governmental study, we
launched a comprehensive research and fact-finding effort. We sought
to evaluate and supplement existing material, to fill knowledge voids
and to assess the so-called truths commonly posed in the marihuana
debate.

Soon after funds became available on March 22, 1971, we commis-
sioned more than 50 projects, ranging from a study of the effects
of marihuana on man to a field survey of enforcement of the mari-
huana laws in six metropolitan jurisdictions. Of particular impor-
tance in our fact-finding effort were the opinions and attitudes of
all groups in our society.

Through formal and informal hearings, recorded in thousands of
pages of transcripts, we solicited all points of view, including those
of public officials, community leaders, professional experts and stu-
dents. We commissioned a nationwide survey of public beliefs, infor-
mation and experience referred to in this Report as the National
Survey. In addition, we conducted separate surveys of opinion among
district attorneys, judges, probation officers, clinicians, university
health officials and free clinic personnel.

This inquiry focused on the American experience. However, we have
been well aware from the outset that the scope of marihuana use in
the United States differs considerably from that in other countries
where the drug has been used for centuries. Accordingly, the Com-
mission sought to put the American experience in perspective by
seeing the situation first hand in India, Greece, North Africa, J amaica,
Afghanistan, and other countries.

Because of our initial concentration on marihuana, certain issues
common to marihuana and other drugs have been deferred for more
complete coverage in the second Report. For example, a detailed analy-
sis of educational programs about marihuana and its use will be con-
sidered when we evaluate drug education programs in general.

Further, we do not discuss the rehabilitation of the problem mari-
huana user since no such specialized programs exist; we found the
subject is best approached from a broader perspective of rehabilitation
programs for problem users of all non-narcotic drugs. An examina-
tion of federal and state organizational response to the drug issue,
as well as an in-depth study of general law enforcement strategies,
have both been undertaken and will continue, but will not be reported
fully until the second year.

Officers of the Federal Government have set a high priority on
fuller understanding of the marihuana issue and appropriate gov-

emmental action. President Nixon has frequently expressed his per-
sonal and official commitment to providing a rational and equitable
public response to the use and misuse of drugs. Similarly, Congress
has shown its concern in passing the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Pre-
vention and Control Act of 1970. In appointing this Commission,
both the President and Congress have recognized the need for an
independent, nonpartisan appraisal of the nature of marihuana and
the consequences of its use, for a similar appraisal of the abuse of all
drugs, and for appropriate recommendations for public policy as a
result of both studies.

The Commission decided early in its deliberations to write a Report
that was complete but not overly technical so that the reader could
understand the points discussed without analyzing detailed studies.
Such studies and supporting data are included in an Appendix to the
Report, which is published separately. For the researcher and others
interested in greater detail, the Appendix provides the necessary tech-
nical data.

This Report focuses on marihuana, the popular name for a mixture
of stems, leaves and flowering tops of the Indian hemp plant, Cannabis
Sativa L. This Report presents the most significant information
gathered to date about the drug and its users, concluding with the
Commission’s recommendations concerning the most appropriate pub-
lic response to marihuana usage in our society.

marihuana
and the problem
of marihuana

“There are no whole truths ; all truths
are half-truths. It is trying to treat them
as whole truths that plays the devil.”
Alfred North Whitehead (1953)

We are a nation of problem-solvers. We are restless and impatient
with perceived gaps between the way things are and the way we think
they ought to be. Understandably, such an impulse toward self-cor-
rection never leaves us wanting for social problems to solve. Although
it is a prerequisite to social progress, this problem-solving orientation
sometimes misdirects our attention. In order to maximize public aware-
ness, we are apt to characterize situations as being far worse than
they really are. Because any activity is commonly regarded as a move
toward a solution, rhetoric and stopgap legislation sometimes substi-
tute for rational reflection. We become so impressed with social engi-
neeringthat we overlook inherent human limitations.

Since the mid-sixties, American society has been increasingly agi>n
tated by what has been defined as a marihuana problem. The typical
sequences of “a national problem” have resulted : exaggeration, polari-
zation and the inevitable demand for a solution. The appointment of
this Commission and the publication of this Keport reflect the escala-
tion of marihuana use into the realm of social problem. Since the
beginning of our official life, we have grappled with the threshold

question : why has the use of marihuana reached problem status in the
public mind ?

Origins of the Marihuana Problem

Marihuana has been used as an intoxicant in various parts of the
world for centuries and in this country for 75 years. Yet use of the
drug has been regarded as a problem of major proportions for less
than a decade. We will not find the reasons for contemporary social
concern in pharmacology texts or previous governmental reports, for
we are dealing with two separate realities : a drug with certain phar-
macologic properties and determinable, although variable, effects on
man ; and a pattern of human behavior, individual and group, which
has, as a behavior , created fear, anger, confusion, and uncertainty
among a large segment of the contemporary American public. The
marihuana behavior pattern is the source of the marihuana
controversy.

The most apparent feature of the behavior is that it is against the
law. But inconsistency between behavior and the legal norm is not
sufficient, in itself, to create a social problem. Marihuana has been an
illegal substance for several decades; and the widespread violation
of laws against gambling and adultery have not excited the public
to the same extent as has marihuana-smoking in recent years.

At the same time, we suspect that illegality may play an important
role in problem definition where drugs are concerned. Alcohol is of
proven danger to individual and societal health and the public is well
aware of its dangers, yet use of this drug has not been accorded the
same problem status. Marihuana’s illegality may have been a neces-
sary condition for the marihuana problem, but the increased violation
of the legal proscription does not by itself explain the phenomenon.

The Commission believes that three interrelated factors have fos-
tered the definition of marihuana as a major national problem. First,
the illegal behavior is highly visible to all segments of our society.
Second, use of the drug is perceived to threaten the health and moral-
ity not only of the individual but of the society itself. Third, and most
important, the drug has evolved in the late sixties and early seventies
as a symbol of wider social conflicts and public issues.

VISIBILITY

More than anything else, the visibility of marihuana use by a seg-
ment of our population previously unfamiliar with the drug is what
stirred public anxiety and thrust marihuana into the problem area .
Marihuana usage in the United States has been with us for a very
long period of time, dating back to the beginning of the century. F or

decades, its use was mainly confined to the underprivileged socioeco-
nomic groups in our cities and to certain insulated social groups, such
as jazz musicians and artists. As long as use remained confined to
these groups and had a negligible impact on the dominant social order,
the vast majority of Americans remained unconcerned. From the other
side, the insulated marihuana user was in no position to demand care-
ful public or legislative scrutiny.

However, all this changed markedly in the mid-1960’s. For various
reasons, marihuana use became a common form of recreation for many
middle and upper class college youth. The trend spread across the
country, into the colleges and high schools and into the affluent suburbs
as well. Use by American servicemen in Vietnam was frequent. In
recent years, use of the drug has spanned every social class and
geographic region.

The Commission-sponsored National Survey, “A Nationwide Study
of Beliefs, Information and Experiences,” indicated that some 24
million Americans have tried marihuana at least once and that at least
8.3 million are current users.

Other surveys uniformly indicate that more than 40% of the U.S.
college population have tried marihuana, and in some universities the
figure is much higher. Also, use of the drug has become almost as
common among young adults out of college, and among older teenagers
in high school. The National Survey indicates that 39% of young adults
between 18 and 25 years of age have tried marihuana. The stereotype
of the marihuana user as a marginal citizen has given way to a
composite picture of large segments of American youth, children of
the dominant majority and very much a part of the mainstream of
American life.

Public confusion, anger, and fear over this development became
increasingly apparent during the mid and late 1960’s. Such mass devi-
ance was a problem and the scope of the problem was augmented by
frequent publicity. The topic of the usage of marihuana by the young
received considerable attention from newspapermen and television re-
porters. The drug’s youthful users abetted the media in this regard
by flaunting their disregard of the law. Few of us have not seen or
heard of marihuana being used en masse at rock concerts, political
demonstrations and gatherings of campus activists.

In addition, new scientific and medical interest in marihuana and
its use was stimulated by the sudden public interest. For the first time
in the American experience, the drug became the subject of intensive
scrutiny in the laboratories and clinics. Unfortunately, this research
was conducted in the spotlight of public controversy. Isolated findings
and incomplete information have automatically been presented to the
public, with little attempt made to place such findings in a larger per-
spective or to analyze their meanings.

456-964 0-72-2

Any new marihuana research has had ready access to the news spot-
light and often has been quickly assimilated into the rhetoric of the
marihuana debate. Science has become a weapon in a propaganda
battle. Because neither the reporters nor the public have the expertise
to evaluate this information, the result has been an array of conflicting
anecdotal reports, clinical studies on limited populations, and surveys
of restricted utility.

Visibility, intense public interest, and fishbowd research are all im-
portant components of the marihuana problem.

PERCEIVED THREATS

Although marihuana is taken by most users for curiosity or pleasure,
the non-using public still feels seriously affected by use of the drug.
Several decades ago it was popularly asserted that the drug brought
about a large variety of social and individual ills, including crime
and insanity. As a result it was prohibited by federal law in 1937.
The marihuana explosion of the mid-sixties occurred within the con-
text of 30 years of instilled fear. Although based much more on fan-
tasy than on proven fact, the marihuana “evils” took root in the
public mind, and now continue to color the public reaction to the
marihuana phenomenon. Even beyond the violation of law, the wide-
spread use of marihuana is seen as a threat to society in other ways.
And the threats grow proportionately as the controversy swells.

It has been astutely observed that any statement frequently re-
peated in public assumes the status of fact. With so many people
continually arguing about marihuana, the public has understandably
become alarmed and confused.

On the basis of the National Survey, we have tried to identify the
ways in which the public feels threatened by marihuana use. Essen-
tially these threats fall into three general categories: threats to the
public safety, threats to the public health, and threats to thp dominant
social order. ~~ " — — — — '

'TiTterms of public safety, the concern is with the relationship be-
tween marihuana and aggressive behavior, crime and juvenile delin-
quency. Threats to the public health usually refer initially to the
impact of marihuana on the user. Lethality, psychosis, addiction po-
tential and effects of chronic long-term use are major concerns. Addi-
tionally, the fear exists that marihuana leads to the use of more
dangerous drugs, especially LSD and heroin.

The threat which marihuana use is thought to present to the domi-
-nj^nt social order is a major undercurrent of the marihuana problem.
Use of the drug is linked with idleness, lack of motivation, hedonism
and sexual promiscuity. Many see the drug as fostering a counter-
culture which conflicts with basic moral precepts as well as with the
operating functions of our society. The “dropping out” or rejection of

the established value system is viewed with alarm. Marihuana becomes
more than a drug; it becomes a symbol of the rejection of cherished
values.

SYMBOLISM

The symbolic aspects of marihuana are the most intangible of the
items to which the Commission must address itself, and yet they may
be atjihedieart~ofd:he marihuana problem. Use of marihuana was, and
still (^age-specific. It was youth-related at a time in American history
when the adult ^society was alarmed by the implications of the youth
“movement” : defiance of the established order, the adoption of new
life styles, the emergence of “street people,” campus unrest, drug use,
communal living, protest politics, and even political radicalism. In an
age characterized by the so-called generation gap, marihuana symbol-
izes the cultural divide.

For youth, marihuana became a convenient symbol of disaffection
with traditional society, an allure which supplemented its recreational
attraction. Smoking marihuana may have appealed to large numbers
of youth who opposed certain policies or trends, but who maintained
faith in the American system as a whole. In a time when symbolic
speech is often preferred to the literal form, marihuana was a conveni-
ent instrument of mini -protest. It was also an agent of group solidar-
ity, as the widely-publicized rock concerts so well illustrate.

For the adult society, the decade of the sixties was a distressing time.
The net effect of racial unrest, campus disruption, political assassina-
tion, economic woes and an unpopular war was widespread uneasiness.
Attending a general fear that the nation was witnessing its own dis-
integration was a desire to shore up our institutions and hold the line.
That line was easy to define where drugs, particularly marihuana,
were concerned.

Use of drugs, including marihuana, is against the law. For many,
marihuana symbolized disorder in a society fni strated.JjE i n creasi n g
lawlessness^ Insistence on application of the law tended also to harden
views, thereby escalating still further the use of marihuana as a sym-
bolic issue.

The social conflicts underlying the drug?s symbolic status have dis-
sipated somewhat in the past few years; and in some ways, the
Commission has similarly noted a partial deflation of the marihuana
problem and of the emotionalism surrounding it. TYe are hopeful that
our attempt to clarify the scientific and normative dimensions of mari-
huana use will further deemphasize the problem orientation and facili-
tate rational decision-making.

The Need for Perspective

This Commission has the task of exploring the marihuana contro-
versy from as many vantage points as possible in its attempt to make
sound, realistic and workable policy recommendations. Because we are
dealing essentially with a complex social concern rather than a simple
pharmacologic phenomenon, any social policy decision must discuss
the realities of marihuana as a drug, marihuana use &s a form of be-
havior, and marihuana as a symbol.

Particularly important is the determi nation of the longevity of the
behavior. Are we dealing with a behavior that is becoming rooted in
our culture or are we experiencing an aberration, a fad that will in
time, of its own accord, pass away ?

The vortex of the marihuana controversy is the present, but the
prudent policy planner must not be blinded by the deluge of recent
statistics. It is important that we scan the past for clues about the
meaning of certain behavior and the promise offered by various social
policy responses. We are convinced that a wider historical under-
standing will also go a long way toward deflating marihuana as a
problem.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

When viewed in the context of American society’s ambivalent re-
sponse to the non-medical use of drugs, the marihuana problem is not
unique. Both the existing social policy toward the drug and its con-
temporary challenge have historical antecedents and explanations.
Somewhat surprisingly, until the last half of the 19th century, the
only drugs used to any significant extent for non-medical purposes in
this country were alcohol and tobacco.

American opinion has always included some opposition to the non-
medical use of any drug, including alcohol and tobacco. From colonial
times through the Civil War, abstentionist outcries against alcohol
and tobacco sporadically provoked prohibitory legislation. One 18th
century pamphleteer advised against the use of any drink “which is
liable to steal away a man’s senses and render him foolish, irascible,
uncontrollable and dangerous.” Similarly, one 19th century observer
attributed delirium tremens, perverted sexuality, impotency, insanity
and cancer to the smoking and Chewing of tobacco.

Despite such warnings, alcohol and tobacco use took deep root in
American society. De Tocqueville noted what hard drinkers the Ameri-
cans were, and Dickens was compelled to report that “in all the pub-
lic places of America, this filthy custom [tobacco chewing] is recog-
nized.” Nonetheless, the strain in our culture opposed to all non-medi-
cal drug use persisted and in the late 19th century gained ardent ad-
herents among larger segments of the population.

Beginning in earnest around 1870, abstentionists focused the pub-
lic opinion process on alcohol. As science and politics were called to
the task, public attention was drawn to the liquor problem. “Liquor
is responsible for 19% of the divorces, 25% of the poverty, 25% of the
insanity, 37% of the pauperism, 45% of child desertion and 50% of
the crime in this country,” declared the Anti- Saloon League. “And
this,” it was noted, “is a very conservative estimate.”

The Temperance advocates achieved political victory during the
second decade of the 20th century. By 1913, nine states were under
statewide prohibition, and in 31 other states local option laws operated,
with the ultimate effect that more than 50% of the nation’s population
lived under prohibition. Four years later, Congress approved the 18th
Amendment and on January 16, 1919, Nebraska became the 36th state
to ratify the Amendment, thus inscribing national Prohibition in the
Constitution.

Although on a somewhat smaller scale and with lesser results, public
attention was simultaneously attracted to a growing tobacco problem.
Stemming partly from the immediate popularity of cigarette- smoking,
a practice introduced after the Civil War, and partly from riding the
coattails of abstentionist sentiment, anti-tobacconists achieved a
measure of success which had previously eluded them. The New York
Times editorialized in 1885 that :

The decadence of Spain began when the Spaniards adopted cigarettes
and if this pernicious habit obtains among adult Americans, the ruin
of the Republic is close at hand. . . .

Between 1895 and 1921, 14 states banned the sale of cigarettes.

Although there has been some posthumous debate about the efficacy
of alcohol Prohibition as a means of reducing excessive or injurious
use, the experiment failed to achieve its declared purpose : elimination
of the practice of alcohol consumption. The habit was too ingrained in
the society to be excised simply by cutting off legitimate supply.

In addition, the 18th Amendment never commanded a popular con-
sensus ; in fact, the Wickersham Commission, appointed by President
Hoover in 1929 to study Prohibition, attributed the Amendment’s
enactment primarily to public antipathy toward the saloon, the large
liquor dealers and intemperance rather than to public opposition to
use of the drug.

Subsequent observers have agreed that Prohibition was motivated
primarily by a desire to root out the institutional evils associated with
the drug’s distribution and excessive use ; only a minority of its sup-
porters opposed all use. And in this respect, Prohibition succeeded.
U pon repeal ,T3 years after ratification, liquor was back, but the pre-
Prohibition saloon and unrestrained distribution had been eliminated
from the American scene.

Both the scope of the alcohol habit and the ambivalence of support-

ing opinion are manifested in the internal logic of Prohibition legisla-
tion. The legal scheme was designed to cut off supply, not to punish
the consumer. Demand could be eliminated effectively, if at all, only
through educational efforts. Only five states prohibited possession
of alcohol for personal use in the home. Otherwise, under both federal
and state law, the individual remained legally free to consume alcohol.

The anti-tobacco movement was not propelled by the institutional
outrage or the cultural symbolism surrounding the alcohol problem.
It never succeeded on a national scale. Local successes were attributable
to the temporary strength of the abstentionist impulse, together with
the notion that tobacco-smoking was a stepping-stone to alcohol use.
Lacking the consensus necessary to reverse a spreading habit, tobacco
“prohibition” never extended to possession. Insof ar as the anti-tobacco
movement was really a coattail consequence of alcohol Prohibition, it
is not surprising that all 14 states which had prohibited sale repealed
their proscriptions by 1927.

By the early 1930’s, the abstentionist thrust against alcohol and
tobacco had diminished. State and federal governments contented
themselves with regulating distribution and extracting revenue. When
the decade ended, the general public no longer perceived alcohol and
tobacco use as social problems. The two drugs had achieved social
legitimacy.

A comparison between the national flirtation with alcohol and
tobacco prohibition and the prohibition of the non-medical use of
other drugs is helpful in analyzing the marihuana issue. In 1900,
only a handful of states regulated traffic in “narcotic” drugs — opium,
morphine, heroin and cocaine — even though, proportionately, more
persons probably were addicted to those drugs at that time than at
any time since. Estimates from contemporary surveys are questionable,
but a conservative estimate is a quarter of a million people, comprising
at least 1% of the population. This large user population in 1900 in-
cluded more females than males, more whites than blacks, was not
confined to a particular geographic region or to the cities, and was
predominantly middle class.

This 19th century addiction was generally accidental and well-
hidden. It stemmed in part from over-medication, careless prescription
practices, repeated refills and hidden distribution of narcotic drugs
in patent medicines. Society responded to this largely invisible medical
addiction in indirect, informal ways. Self-regulation by the medical
profession and pharmaceutical industry, stricter prescription prac-
tices by the state governments and regulation of labeling by the Fed-
eral Government in 1906 all combined in the early years of the new
century to reduce the possibility of this accidental drug addiction.

About this same time, during the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
attention within the law enforcement and medical communities was

drawn to another use of narcotics — the “pleasure” or “street” use of
these drugs by ethnic minorities in the nation’s cities. Society reacted
to this narcotics problem by enacting criminal legislation, prohibiting
the non-medical production, distribution or consumption of these
drugs. Within a very few years, every state had passed anti-narcotics
legislation, and in 1914 the Federal Government passed the Harrison
Narcot ics Act .

The major differences between the temperance and anti-narcotics
movements must be emphasized. The temperance movement was a
matter of vigorous public debate; the anti-narcotics movement was
not. Temperance legislation was the product of a highly organized
nationwide lobby: narcotics legislation was largely ad hoc. Temper-
ance legislation was designed to eradicate known problems resulting
from alcohol abuse: narcotics legislation was largely anticipatory.
Temperance legislation rarely restricted private activity ; narcotics
legislation prohibited all drug-related behavior, including possession
and use.

These divergent policy patterns reflect the clear-cut separation in
the public and professional minds between alcohol and tobacco on the
one hand, and “narcotics” on the other. Use of alcohol and tobacco were
indigenous American practices. The intoxicant use of narcotics was
not native, however, and the users of these drugs were either alien, like
the Chinese opium smokers, or perceived to be marginal members of
society.

As to the undesirability and immorality of non-medical use of nar-
cotics, there was absolutely no debate. By causing its users to be phy-
sically dependent, the narcotic drug was considered a severe impedi-
ment to individual participation in the economic and political sys-
tems. Use, it was thought, automatically escalated to dependence and
excess, which led to pauperism, crime and insanity. From a sociological
perspective, narcotics use was thought to be prevalent among the
slothful and immoral populations, gamblers, prostitutes, and others
who were already “undersirables.” Most important was the threat that
narcotics posed to the vitality of the nation’s youth.

In short, the narcotics question was answered in unison: the non-
medical use of narcotics was a cancer which had to be removed entirely
from the social organism.

Marihuana smoking first became prominent on the American scene
in the decade following the Harrison Act. Mexican immigrants and
s West Indian sailors introduced the practice in the border and Gulf
[ states. As the Mexicans spread throughout the West and immigrated
V to the major cities, some of them carried the marihuana habit with
them. The practice also became common among the same urban popu-
lations with whom opiate use was identified.

Under such circumstances, an immediate policy response toward

marihuana quite naturally followed the narcotics pattern rather than
the alcohol or tobacco pattern. In fact, marihuana was incorrectly
classified as a “narcotic” drug in scientific literature and statutory pro-
visions. By 1931, all but two states west of the Mississippi and several
more in the East had enacted prohibitory legislation making it a
criminal offense to possess or use the drug.

In 1932, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws included an optional marihuana provision in the Uniform
Narcotic Drug Act, and by 1937 every state, either by adoption of the
Uniform Act or by separate legislation, had prohibited marihuana
use. In late 1937, the Congress adopted the Marihuana Tax Act, super-
imposing a federal prohibitory scheme on the state scheme.

Not once during this entire period was any comprehensive scientific
study undertaken in this country of marihuana or its effects. The drug
was assumed to be a “narcotic,” to render the user psychologically de-
pendent, to provoke violent crime, and to cause insanity. Although
media attention was attracted to marihuana use around 1935, public
awareness was low and public debate non-existent. As long as use
remained confined to insulated minorities throughout the next quarter
century, the situation remained stable. When penalties for narcotics
violations escalated in the 1950’s, marihuana penalties went right along
with them, until a first-offense possessor was a felon subject to lengthy
incarceration.

With this historical overview in mind, it is not surprising that the
contemporary marihuana experience has been characterized by fear
and confusion on one side and outrage and protest on the other. As
scientific and medical opinion has become better known, marihuana
htCs lost its direct link with the narcotics in the public mind and in the
statute books.

But extensive ambivalence remains about the policies for various
drugs. Marihuana’s advocates contend that it is no more or less harm-
ful than alcohol and tobacco and should therefore be treated in similar
fashion. The drug’s adversaries contend that it is a stepping-stone to
the narcotics and should remain prohibited. At the present time public
opinion tends to consider marihuana less harmful than the opiates and
cocaine and more harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

Interestingly, while marihuana is perceived as less harmful than
before, alcohol and tobacco are regarded as more harmful than before.
In some ways, the duality which previously characterized American
drug policy has now been supplanted by an enlightened skepticism
as to the variety of approaches to the non -medical use of various drugs.

Despite this shift in attitudes, however, the use of alcohol and
tobacco is not considered a major social problem by many Americans,
while marihuana use is still so perceived.

This remains true despite the fact that alcoholism afflicts nine mil-

lion Americans. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Addic-
tion and Alcoholism of the National Institute of Mental Health:

• alcohol is a factor in half (30,000) of the highway fatalities occur-
ring each year;

• an economic cost to the nation of $15 billion occurs as a result of
acoholism and alcohol abuse;

• one-half of the five million yearly arrests in the United States
are related to the misuse of alcohol (1.5 million offenses for pub-
lic drunkenness alone) ; and

• one-half of all homicides and one -fourth of all suicides are alcohol-
related, accounting for a total of 11,700 deaths annually.

Similarly, tobacco smoking is not considered a major public con-
cern despite its link to lung cancer and heart disease. According to
the Surgeon General in The Health Consequences of Smoking , 1972:

• cigarette smoking is the major “cause” of lung cancer in men
and a significant “cause” of lung cancer in women; the risk of
developing lung cancer in both men and women is directly related
to an individual^ exposure as measured by the number of ciga-
rettes smoked, duration of smoking, earlier initiation, depth of
inhalation, and the amount of ;itar” produced by the cigarette;
and

• data from numerous prospective and retrospective studies indi-
cate that cigarette smoking is a significant risk factor contrib-
uting to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD)
including fatal CHD and its most severe expression, sudden and
unexpected death.

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

Realizing the importance of social change in understanding thi
issues surrounding the use of marihuana and other drugs, the Com-
mission decided early that an objective appraisal of cultural trends
was vital for the development of policy recommendations. Since
neither the increase in marihuana use nor its attendant controversy
is an isolated phenomenon, we sought a wider cultural perspective. To
this end, the Commission sponsored a wide-ranging seminar on “Cen-
tral Influences on American Life.” With the cooperation of the Coun-
cil for Biology in Human Affairs of the Salk Institute, we elicited
a three-day conversation among 13 exceptionally thoughtful and per-
ceptive observers of American life.*

*The participants included Jacques Barzun, as moderator, Mary Bingham.
Claude T. Bissell, Kenneth Boulding. Robert R. Bowie. Theodore Caplow, Jay
W. Forrester, T. George Harris. Rollo May. Jay Saunders Redding, Jonas Salk,
Ernest van den Haag, and Leroy S. Wehrle.

It is well beyond both our mandate and our competence to attempt
a definitive presentation of the status of the American ethical system.
However, we shall try to suggest some of the more salient influences
in our changing society, recognizing that only against the backdrop
of society’s fears, aspirations and values can a rational response to
marihuana be formulated. Although we are not prepared to identify
specific causal connections between these social trends and marihuana
use, we do believe that some of the major points raised in the discus-
sion of cultural change provide essential background in understand-
ing the marihuana problem.

The Search for Meaning

One overriding influence in contemporary America is the declining
capacity of our institutions to help the individual find his place in
society. As one of the participants at the Seminar observed :

A society is stable, peaceful, happy, not when it has rid itself
of the tensions — because you never get rid of the tensions, because
people’s drives will be satisfied in ways that clash and so on — but
when a very high proportion of the people feel fulfillment of some
sort within the context which the society normally provides. The
long-term problem now, for many many people, not just young
people, is that this condition is not met.

Another noted:

What is wrong with our social system, it seems to me, is that it no
longer inspires in people a feeling of purpose, meaningfulness and
so on.

A number of institutional trends have joined to deprive the indi-
vidual of a sense of communal inspiration. Perhaps most important is
the economic element. Whereas the individual’s economic achievement
formerly gave his life broad social meaning and inspired his existence,
automation and technological advance have tended to depersonalize
the individual’s role in the economy. Instead of the economic system
being dependent on individual productivity, the individual is in-
creasingly dependent on the system. As his work dwindles in signifi-
cance to the total society, it diminishes in meaning for him. Moreover,
as more and more of our people share the nation’s affluence, Horatio
Alger’s example is no longer needed to climb the economic ladder.

A particularly emphatic manifestation of the declining economic
demand on the individual is the institutionalization of leisure time.
Whereas the economy used to require long hours of work, now it
barely requires more than a five-day week. Expanding vacation time
and reduced work- weeks tend to diminish the strength of the work

ethic. The implications of enforced leisure time are only now becoming
apparent, and the concept of “idle hands are the devil’s plaything”
has to be reexamined in terms of acceptable forms of non- work be-
havior. This new time component, allowing for the assertion of indi-
viduality, has produced both privileges and problems.

In the last decade we have seen the beginnings of the institutionali-
zation of this leisure ethic. A leisure-time industry has sprung up to
organize this time period for the individual. Many Americans, due
to the nature of their jobs in an automated economic system, find
little personal satisfaction in their work, and many are now searching
for individual fulfillment through the use of free time. Where meaning
is not found in either work or recreational pursuits, the outcome is
likely to be boredom and restlessness. Whether generated by a search
for individual fulfillment, group recreation or sheer boredom, the
increased use of drugs, including marihuana, should come as no
surprise.

Another social development which has chipped away at individual
identity is the loss of a vision of the future. In an age where change
is so rapid, the individual has no concept of the future. If man could
progress from land transportation to the moon in 60 years, what lies
ahead? Paralleling the loss of the technological horizon is the loss
of a vision of what the future, in terms of individual and social goals,
ought to look like. Are times moving too fast for man to be able
to plan or to adjust to new ways and new styles? This sense of the col-
lapsing time frame was best summed up by one of the Seminar
participants :

.... there are great forces that have developed over the last several
decades that cause one to lose sight of the distant future. Let me
contrast a rural farm family of several decades ago which settled
a farm. They expected their children to live there, they can imagine
their grandchildren living there — there is an image of the future.
There is really no one who [now] has any image of where his great
grandchildren will be or what they will do. This comes about because
of the nature of industrial society ; it comes about because we have
retirement plans instead of looking after one’s own old age. There
are a whole set of these [factors].

Now the morality, the ethics get tied into it because ethics are
really a long-time horizon concept. It’s something you engage in
because it’s contrary to immediate reward and immediate gratifi-
cation and so you look to some distant future. But as one loses
sight of any future then I think the ethics and morality creep up
to the very near term also ... We have no one who has got an
image of this country two hundred years from now, who is trying
to create a structure that he believes will exist that long. So a
number of these things ... tie together in terms of the long-term

goals and how they have shifted. In any of our systems there tends
to be a conflict between the short-term and the long-term goals. If
the long-term goals are lost sight of then the short-term expediencies
seem to be the things that well up.

To the extent that planning for the future no longer gives the in-
dividual his inspiration, he must look to the present. Such a climate
is conducive to pleasure -seeking, instant gratification and an entire
life-perspective which our society has always previously disclaimed.

A third force depriving the individual of a presumed place in
society is the loss of a sense of community, a sense of belonging. Mo-
bility, mass living and rapid travel all conspire to destroy the smaller
community. The family moves from place to place and then separates,
with each child going his own way. This global thinking leaves little
time for home- town concern.

The dissipation of geographic roots parallels a social uprooting.
As one of our Seminar participants noted :

When you grow up with a small number of people with whom you
have to live for a while, it does something which isn’t done now.
It forces you to face yourself. It forces you to ask what kind of person
you are, because you can’t get away with it with a group you’re
going to have to live with. They know what you really are. The
mobility has the effect of making it possible for people to live play-
ing parts for years. It seems to me we see it among the youngsters :
role playing as distinguished from being somebody. . . .

All of these social trends have their most potent impact on young
people who are just beginning to develop their values, beliefs and
commitments. The adult society has found it easier to adjust to the
emergence of the leisure value. Having experienced it as a gradual
process, they see it as a reward for previous toil. For many of our
young, however, a substantial segment of leisure time may be con-
sidered an essential part of living ; they have known no other experi-
ence. Similarly, an adult society, increasingly influenced toward the
present, at least has developed an historical perspective. Also, adult
values were internalized at a time when a future vision was possible.
For many of the young, however, the present weighs more heavily.
This notion is best reflected in the vociferous youth response to the
Vietnam conflict, the embodiment of a war fought for the future.

Finally, all of these cultural changes have occurred, especially for
the young, in an environment of affluence. The successful economic
system has maximized individual freedom. But the individual has
been given unlimited choices at exactly the time when a value system
within which to make such choices is in doubt. Because he has no sense
of direction, the result is restlessness, boredom and an increase in the
likelihood of present-oriented choices. Self-destructive drug-taking is

one form such behavior may take. One of our Seminar participants
observed in this connection :

It seems to me that you’ve got this affluence. So that while most of
us grew up with the feeling that the channels within which we were
going to have to move and make choices were very narrow, channels
for these youngsters look absolutely open. It’s an absolutely a la
carte menu — it’s the biggest a la carte menu you can imagine. [This
occurs] in a situation in which this sense of radical change is going
on so fast that you can’t master it, together with a feeling that the
society is being operated by very large organizations which you
can’t get a grip on, giving one a sense of helplessness, of not know-
ing where to take hold. All these things inherently are disorienting
to youngsters and don’t give them a feeling of challenge, [but
rather] a doubt as to the meaning of their own lives, of the sig-
nificance of their being here, [a sense of] being atoms. So then they
do act like children in the sense of behaving violently to call atten-
tion to themselves. They do a whole lot of other things which, it
seems to me, are the sort of things you often see when people feel
their lives have no meaning.

Skepticism

Another major influence in contemporary American life with sub-
stantial relevance to the marihuana problem is the uneasy relation-
ship between the individual and society’s institutions, particularly
the state. For 50 years, there has been a continuing upward flow of
power to large institutional units, whether they be corporate con-
glomerates, labor unions, universities or the Government. We have
created a society which “requires the individual to lean on society,”
observed one of our Seminar participants, “in ways that formerly
he did not have to do. He used to lean on the clan, on the family, on
the village. We have used bureaucracy to deal with these problems.”
For many, the Federal Government epitomizes this development,
bureaucratizing a social response to the most human of needs.

We suspect that the implications of this trend for the individual,
although inevitable, became more visibly apparent in the 1960’s. Mass
institutions must deal through rules; the individual becomes a num-
ber. “Intuitively, [the individual] feels that bureaucracies must make
man into an object in order to deal with him.” So we have a deper-
sonalization at exactly the time that many individuals are casting
about for identity and fulfillment.

Simultaneously, technological advance poses the awesome prospect
of 1984 : the intrusion of the omnipresent state into the private affairs
of the individual. Computerized data-banks and electronic surveil-
lance are perceived as restrictions on individuality at a time when
the desire for personal privacy is ascendant.

Another cultural feature of governmental bureaucracy during the
sixties has been failure to match expectations. Government promises
the elimination of poverty, the dissipation of racial discrimination,
the excision of drug abuse, and creates rising expectations. But gov-
ernment is often ill-equipped or unable to perform such monumental
tasks. As individual helplessness increases, as the “responsibility” of
the bureaucracy enlarges, those in need often feel that the gap be-
tween public declaration and performance must be the result of a
conspiracy to fail. And for the rest of us, there is the credibility gap.
The net result is a loss of confidence in society’s institutions. Viewed
from this perspective, youthful dissent, cynicism and disobedience
of the 1960’s were not such surprising consequences.

Still another significant feature of institutional life in contempo-
rary America is the la^ between purpose and implementation. That
is, some of our social institutions have not yet begun to deal with
the consequences of the social and economic changes which have
occurred over the last several decades. The best example, and the
one most germane to the youth, is the educational system. Two gen-
erations ago, the labor force could assimilate the large majority of
the nation’s youth. Neither a high school nor a college education
was prerequisite to occupational choice or achievement. Increased
educational attainment was presumed to be limited to either the privi-
leged or the able and would be rewarded by certain careers.

Today, however, the labor force grows more quickly than the sys-
tem is able to assimilate it, and the educational system now serves as
custodian as well as teacher. Although we sincerely wish to achieve
the democratic ideal of a highly educated populace, we also keep our
children in school as long as possible because we have nothing else
for them to do. The trend is strikingly apparent even in the last 20
years.

Age

Percent enrolled
in school
1950 1970

14-15 94. 7 98. 1

16-17 71. 3 90. 0

18-19 29. 4 47. 7

20-24 9. 0 21. 5

This custodial function confronts educators with a dilemma. Attri-
tion is not in society’s best interest; thus, single-minded devotion to
the highest levels of achievement would be dysfunctional. In a sense,
because the system no longer wants to turn away its subjects, the

notion of failure has lost its meaning. As one of the Seminar partici-
pants observed:

I think one of the problems is that there is no longer a penalty for
failure. We — the educators — have had to lower standards in order
to accommodate these people who need no longer fear failure. Of
course this has been a cyclical thing, a wheel within a wheel. [If]
there is no longer a penalty for failure, then there is no longer the
need to acquire.

The changing function of education has been felt in both the sec-
ondary schools and in our institutions of higher learning. Numerous
high school graduates cannot read. Colleges and junior colleges have
sprung up overnight to accommodate the population, but many provide
classrooms with little specific purpose. Only slowly is the educational
system beginning to come to grips with its role in a changed society.
At the university level, many educators have been appalled at sacri-
fices which have ensued from the custodial feature; rote learning,
they contend, has supplanted citizen and character education. — -

Uncertainty about the role of the educational system has not
escaped the students, particularly at the college level. Many of our
youth, pressed into longer attendance, question its need or desira-
bility. The demand for “relevance” is but another reflection of the
search for meaning, for_im understandable role in society. Drug use
has perhaps provided an outlet for some members of this restless gen-
eration, uncertain of its place.

The Limits of Rationality

The social response to the individuars search for meaning has
fostered an ambivalence, an unwillingness to act, a paralysis. In large
measure, according to one Seminar member, this default of authority
reveals the intensity of the search :

In the same way we are getting universities that can’t teach, families
that can’t socialize and police forces that can’t catch criminals. In
every case, the same issue is involved : the subject of authority ques-
tions the legitimacy of authority and the exerciser of it is unable to
find — very often doesn’t even try to find — a defense, because he feels
in himself a sympathy, as do so many parents, with the challenge.

To a significant extent, society is waiting, hoping that the impulse
for change will settle around certain fundamental attributes of the
American ethic. At the present time, however, no consensus about the
nature of these fundamentals exists. We are all looking for values that
have deep roots, as we attempt to sort out the durable from the
ephemeral.

All of the participants at our Central Influences Seminar agreed

that the unique feature of this search was its arational quality. As one
observer put it :

We have been discussing the question of how we change a society.
I don’t think it’s changed by rational intention. As I understand
societies, historically and our own, what really is required to change
it is something on a deeper level that involves myth, ritual, sacra-
ment— a number of these functions that have always been related to
societies. On these you can’t just suddenly make up your mind and
then prescribe.

Kegarding our problem of authority, you cannot really ask the ques-
tion : why can’t these people hang onto their authority ? They can’t
hang onto it because what gave them authority is something not of
themselves, but part of the society, part of a ritual, a sacrament:
a way of behaving in the group which gave them authority,
[whether] professorial, parental or policy authority. In each one
of these cases, what we see is not the diminishing of these men so
much but rather the developing emptiness, the lack of the particular
ethic that gave them authority to start with. This is why we are in
a terrible dilemma.

What is essentially lacking is a system of ethics, morality or religion
that gives birth to the myths, the rituals, the sacraments that are its
expression. These touch human beings on the unconscious level.
These are the ways we see the world. They are not our conscious
thought, but the ways we form ourselves — form each other, love
each other or hate each other — in terms not so much of rational in-
tention as a deeper unconscious — conscious and unconscious — which
is my definition of a myth ; much more of a feeling level, a living
level. That is what is not present now.

What we need, below and above all of our deliberations, is the
growth and development of an ethical system. We just do not have
this now.

As we move into the 1970’s, our society is collectively engaged in the
task of determining what America means, and how each individual
should find fulfillment in a changing age. From this wider perspective
of flux emerges an uncertainty about what the increased prevalence
of marihuana use means for the individual and the total society.

Formulating Marihuana Policy

Present symbolism, past implications, and future apprehensions
all combine to give marihuana many meanings. These diverse notions
of what marihuana means constitute the marihuana problem. In this
atmosphere, the policy-maker’s position is precarious insofar as no
assumption is beyond dispute. Accordingly, the Commission has taken

particular care to define the process by which a social policy decision
should be reached.

In studying the arguments of past and present observers to justify
a particular kind of marihuana policy, we conclude that a major im-
pediment to rational decision-making in this area is oversimplifica-
tion. As suggested earlier, many ingredients are included in the mari-
huana mix — medical, legal, social, philosophical, and moral. Many
observers have tended to isolate one element, highlight it and then
extrapolate social policy from that one premise. In an area where law,
science and morality are so intertwined, we must beware of the tend-
ency toward such selectivity.

SCIENTIFIC OVERSIMPLIFICATION

It is wrong to assume, as many have done, that a particular statement
of marihuana’s effects compels a given social policy or legal imple-
mentation. An accurate statement of the effects of the drug is obviously
an important consideration, but it is conclusive only if the effects are
extreme one way or the other. For example, if the use of a particular
drug immediately causes the user to murder anyone in his presence,
we have no doubt that a vigorous effort to eliminate use of that drug
would be in order. On the other hand, if the effects of the drug are
purely benign, presenting no danger whatsoever to the user or society,
no reason would exist to suppress it.

We know of no psychoactive substance, including marihuana, which
falls at either of these extremes. Thus, it begs the issue to contend,
as some have done, that because we don’t know enough about the
effects of heavy, chronic use, we should maintain the status quo. We
know a lot about the adverse effects of alcoholism and heavy cigarette
smoking, and yet no responsible observer suggests that we should
adopt total prohibition for these drugs. Similarly, previous estimates
of marihuana’s role in causing crime and insanity were based on
quite erroneous information; but to infer from this that marihuana
should be considered totally benign and hence made freely available
is also not logical. Both approaches are simplistic; both approaches
fail to take into account the social context in which the drug is used
and the dynamic factors affecting the role that marihuana use may
or may not play in the future.

A similar manifestation of scientific oversimplification is the focus
on causality. Many opponents of marihuana use feel compelled to
establish a causal connection between marihuana use and crime,
psychosis, and the use of other drugs, while their adversaries focus
the dispute on negating such relationships. The Commission believes
that this tendency misses the mark.

The policy-maker’s task is concerned primarily with the effects of
marihuana on human behavior. For both philosophical and practical

456-964 0-72-3

reasons, proof of causal relationships is next to impossible. At the
same time, however, the extent to which marihuana use is associated
with certain behaviors and whether any significant relationships exist
can offer important clues.

We must be cautious when dealing with such data. Yet we cannot
afford to paralyze the decision-making process simply because absolute
“proof” is lacking. Spokesmen on both sides of the marihuana debate
should focus not on causation but instead on the relevance of the asso-
ciation between various behavioral effects and marihuana use.

PHILOSOPHICAL OVERSIMPLIFICATION

Some partisans stoutly maintain that the state has no right to inter-
fere with essentially private conduct or that the state has no right to
protect the individual from his own folly. Some of the greatest minds
of the Western world have struggled over such philosophical issues,
always with the same outcome : a recognition of the need to draw a
line between the individual and his social surroundings. That is, every-
thing an individual does, in private or not, potentially may affect
others. The issue is really to determine when the undesirable effect upon
others is likely enough or direct enough for society to take cognizance
of it and to deal with it. Coupled with this is the further question of
whether the nature of the behavior and its possible effect is such that
society should employ coercive measures.

Advocates of liberalization of the marihuana laws commonly con-
tend either that the decision to use marihuana is a private moral deci-
sion or that any harm flowing from use of the drug accrues only to
the user. Defenders of the present restrictions insist that society not
only has the right but is obligated to protect the existing social order
and to compel an individual to abstain from a behavior which may im-
pair his productivity. Unfortunately, the issue is not so simple and the
line often drawn between the private conduct and behavior affecting
the public health and welfare is not conclusive or absolutely definable.

F or example, a decision to possess a firearm, while private, is con-
sidered by many to be of public magnitude, requiring governmental
control. A decision to engage in adulterous conduct, although generally
implemented in private, may have public consequences if society
believes strongly in the desirability of the existing family structure.
Similarly, excessive alcohol consumption, in addition to its adverse
effects on individual health, may impair familial stability and eco-
nomic productivity, matters with which the total society is concerned.

So, while we agree with the basic philosophical precept that society
may interfere with individual conduct only in the public interest,
using coercive measures only when less restrictive measures would not
suffice, this principle merely initiates inquiry into a rational social
policy but does not identify it. We must take a careful look at this

complicated question of the social impact of private behavior. And we
must recognize at the outset the inherent difficulty in predicting effects
on the public health and welfare, and the strong conflicting notions of
what constitutes the public interest.

Again and again during the course of our hearings, we have been
startled by the divergence of opinion within different segments of our
population. Sometimes the disagreement is quite vehement, and
relates to the underlying social concerns of particular groups. For
example, we were told repeatedly by leaders of the urban black com-
munities that they wanted to purge all drug use from their midst,
marihuana included, and that the “legalization” of marihuana would
be viewed as part of a design to keep the black man enslaved.

On the other hand, we were informed repeatedly by the activist
student element that the present social policy regarding marihuana
was merely a tool for suppression of political dissent, and until the
law was changed, there could be no hope of integrating the dissident
population into the mainstream of American society.

Such statements reemphasize the degree to which marihuana is
regarded as a symbol of a larger social concern.

The conflicting notions of the public interest by different segments
of the population reinforced in the Commission’s deliberations the
realization that we have been called upon to recommend public policy
for all segments of the population, for all of the American people. The
public good cannot be defined by one segment of the population, the
old or the young, users or non-users of marihuana, ethnic minorities
or white majority. At the same time, the fears of each of these groups
must be taken into consideration in arriving at the basic social
objectives of the Commission’s public policy recommendation. Where
such fears are real, they must be confronted directly ; where they are
imagined, however, they must be put in perspective and, hopefully,
laid to rest.

SOCIOLOGICAL OVERSIMPLIFICATION

Public debate and decision-making in our society suffer from the
glorification of statistical data. After a particular social phenomenon,
such as marihuana use, has been defined as a problem, armies of social-
scientific researchers set out to analyze and describe the problem. A
sophisticated computer technology instantly translates millions of
bits of data into correlations, probabilities and trends. The most strik-
ing findings are then fed to a data-hungry public. The result is data
overload.

Descriptive information about the nature and scope of marihuana
use as a behavior is an essential component of the policy-maker’s
knowledge-base. However, such information does not in itself have
social policy implications. The policy-maker must define goals and

evaluate means ; only after he asks the right questions will statistical
data suggest useful answers. Unfortunately, a tendency exists in the
marihuana debate to assign prescriptive meanings to descriptive data
without testing the underlying assumptions. Further, the data have
often been accumulating in a fragmented way. No overall plan was
devised beforehand ; the result has been an ad hoc use of available data
triggered by individual research interests rather than by long-term
policy needs.

What does it mean that 24 million people have tried marihuana?
Some have suggested that it means marihuana ought to be legalized.
But does it mean the same thing if 15 million tried the drug once and
have decided not to use it again ? And does it mean the same thing if
popular interest in the drug turns out to be a passing fancy, which
wanes as suddenly as it waxed ?

On the other side of the controversy, what does it mean that a sub-
stantial percentage of the public would favor increased penalties for
marihuana use ? The prescriptive implications of a democratic impulse
may be offset by a preference for individual freedom of choice. Also,
this segment of public opinion may have been influenced by incorrect
information, such as unwarranted belief in marihuana’s lethality or
addiction potential. So, although the policy-maker must be aware of
political realities, he must not allow his function to be supplanted by
public opinion polls. This is an area which requires both awareness of
public attitudes and willingness to assert leadership based on the best
information available.

LEGAL OVERSIMPLIFICATION

Perhaps the major impediment to rational decision-making is the
tendency to think only in terms of the legal system in general and of
the criminal justice system in particular. This thinking is certainly
understandable, given the history of marihuana’s involvement with
the criminal law. Nonetheless, the law does not exist in a social vacuum,
and legal alternatives can be evaluated only with reference to the values
and policies which they are designed to implement and the social
context in which they are designed to operate.

Legal fallacies are apparent on both sides of the marihuana con-
troversy. Many of the persons opposed to marihuana use look exclu-
sively to the law for social control. This reliance on the law is stronger
today because many of our fellow citizens are uneasy about the
diminishing effectiveness of our other institutions, particularly when
the non-legal institutions have been relatively lax in controlling drug-
related behavior. Increasing reliance is placed upon the legal system
to act not only as policeman, but as father confessor, disciplinarian,
educator, rehabilitator and standard-bearer of our moral code. Little or
no thought is given to what impact this over- reliance on the law has on

the viability of other social institutions, not to mention its effect on the
legal process.

A society opposed to marihuana use need not implement that policy
through the criminal law. Non-legal institutions, such as the church,
the school and the family, have great potential for molding individual
behavior. Accordingly, the policy-maker must delicately assess the
capacity of the legal system to accomplish its task and must consider
the mutual impact of legal and non-legal institutions in achieving social
objectives.

We recognize the short-sightedness of an absolute assumption that
the criminal law is the necessary tool for implementing a social policy
opposed to marihuana use. But equally short-sighted is the opposing
contention which attempts to analyze the law separately from its
underlying social policy objective. This argument assumes that if the
law isn’t working, or if the costs of enforcing the law outweigh its
benefits, the law should, therefore, be repealed.

If society feels strongly enough about the impropriety of a certain
behavior, it may choose to utilize the criminal law even though the
behavior is largely invisible and will be minimized only through effec-
tive operation of other agencies of social control. Laws against incest
and child-beating are good examples. In weighing the costs and bene-
fits of a particular law, one must provide a scale and a system of
weights. The scale is the normative classification of behavior, and the
system of weights is the largely subjective evaluation of the importance
of the values breached by the behavior. This weighing process is what
is open to dispute.

In sum, no law works alone. Where an unquestioned consensus exists
about the undesirability of a particular behavior and all social insti-
tutions are allied in the effort to prevent it, as is the case with murder
and theft, the law can be said to “work” even though some murders
and thefts may still be committed. Where society is ambivalent about
its attitude toward the behavior and other institutions are not com-
mitted to its discouragement, the law cannot be said to be working,
even though many people may not engage in the behavior because it is
against the law.

The question is whether the social policy, which the law is designed
to implement, is being achieved to a satisfactory extent. To determine
the role of law regarding marihuana, we must first look to society’s
values and aspirations, and then define the social policy objective. If we
seek to discourage certain marihuana-related behavior, we must care-
fully assess the role of the legal system in achieving that objective.

Ii\this Chapter, we have tried to put the marihuana problem in
perspectivenn the remainder of this Report, we explore several aspects
oTtRe^pHenomenon of marihuana use, its effects, its social impact and
its social meaning, assessing their relative importance in the formula-
tion of social policy.

In Chapter II, we consider the effects of the drug on the individual
user, with particular attention to the size of the user population for
whom various effects are relevant. The Commission emphasizes that
this material is related only indirectly to its policy-making function.
The social policy planner is concerned not about the effects on the
individual per se , but about the impact of any adverse effect on his
behavior and on the larger society and about the meaning of this
behavior in the larger social perspective. The material in Chapter II
serves primarily to educate and inform.

In Chapter III, the Commission evaluates the various threats which
marihuana use is perceived to present to the public safety, public
health, and dominant social order. This Chapter is designed to assess
the social impact of marihuana use, the initial step in the policy -

In Chapter IY, we consider what role marihuana use plays and will
play in the life of American society. This is the dynamic element of
marihuana use and is the mpstjntangible of the marihuana realities,
but is particularly important from a policy-planning perspective. This
consideration is the one most overlooked by contemporary observers
and participants in the marihuana debate.

Because social meaning is not a directly measurable entity, we must
examine the ways in which society responds to the behavior and
whether such responses, both formal and informal, are fluid or static.
After analyzing public opinion, law enforcement behavior and the
reactions of medical, educational, and other segments of the popula-
tion, we then discuss what marihuana use has come to mean and is
likely to mean in the future. Particularly important in this highly
speculative endeavor is the wider cultural perspective which we de-
scribed earlier in this Chapter.

In Chapter Y, we bring this information to bear on a policy-making
process. After establishing the philosophical framework, we explore

suitable to the present time. Then we consider the range of legal alter-
natives for implementing this chosen policy, and select the one we
believe to be most appropriate for achieving it.

In an addendum to the Report, we present some ancillary recom-
mendations. Some of these recommendations flow from our basic

premise, others are a result of independent evaluation by the Commis-
sion of other areas of concern.

We ask the reader to set his preconceptions aside as we have tried
to do, and discriminate with us between marihuana, the drug, and
marihuana, the problem. We hope that our conclusions will be accept -
aBle to the entire public, but barring that, we hope at the least that the
areas of disagreement and their implications will be brought into
sharper focus.

■

marihuana use
and its effects

“F acts are stubborn things : and
whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations,
or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter
the state of facts and evidence.*'
— John Adams (1770)

The ultimate objective of the Commission is to evaluate the total
impact of actual and potential marihuana use on contemporary Ameri-
can society. This endeavor involves three phases : first, an evaluation
of the nature and scope of contemporary American marihuana use;
second, a careful reevaluation of the pharmacological effects of the
drug on the human body with special emphasis on the drug's capacity
to alter or modify behavior; and third, an evaluation of the impact
of marihuana use on society. This chapter deals with the first and
second phases, and Chapter Three deals with the third.

The Marihuana User

Cannabis has been used widely for many centuries in nonindustrial-
ized countries of Asia and Africa. Today, as in earlier vears, use of
the drug is concentrated primarily among lower socioeconomic groups.
In these countries, the practice is estimated to be confined to a tenth
of the lower socioeconomic, male population. Although such use of the

drug is well-established, it offers little direct comparison with the
American experience.

Although the commercial, industrial and therapeutic value of the
hemp plant was widely recognized and exploited in the United States
from the earliest days of its history, knowledge and use of its intoxi-
cating and psychoactive properties remained largely unknown until
about 1900.

At that time, the custom of smoking marihuana was generally
limited to groups of Mexican itinerant workers in the border states of
the Southwest. By 1910, marihuana use began to emerge in other
southern states and cities, particularly New Orleans, and in the port
cities along the Mississippi River. In time, these cities became dis-
tribution centers for enterprising sailors. From there, marihuana use
spread cross-country to other urban centers, mining camps, railroad
construction sites, farm labor camps, “bohemian” communities of
artists and jazz musicians, and various other groups outside the main-
stream of American society.

Recently, of course, use of the drug has spread to young, white,
middle class groups and especially to high school and college
populations.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

On the basis of the Commission-sponsored National Survey, we
have concluded that contemporary marihuana use is pervasive, in-
volving all segments of the U.S. population. The Survey estimated
that about 24 million Americans over the age of 11 years (15% of the
adults 18 and over, and 14% of the 12-17 year olds) have used mari-
huana at least once, referred to in this Report as ever-users. Until re-
cently twice as many males as females had used it ; the most up-to-date
studies of high school students, college-age individuals, and young
adults carried out by the Commission indicate that this sex differential
appears to be diminishing. In many youthful populations use is almost
equally distributed between males and females.

Marihuana use does not appear to vary significantly by race. With
respect to the religious affiliation of the users, Jews and Catholics ap-
pear to be slightly overrepresented as compared to Protestants.

Usage is highest in cities, towns, and suburbs but not uncommon
in rural areas. States in the Northeast and West have considerably
higher rates of use than have the North Central states, which in turn
have significantly higher rates than those in the South.

Use is found in all socioeconomic groups and occupations, though
slightly more predominant among persons with above-average in-
comes. A New York survey of the state’s general population indicated
that ever-use as well as regular use is almost equally prevalent among

sales workers, clerical workers, skilled, semiskilled and unskilled
workers, managers, owners, professionals and technical workers.

At the same time, the incidence of use seems to vary according to
educational attainment. Among all adults not now in school, 5% of
those with an eighth grade education or less have used the drug, con-
trasted with 11% of those who completed some high school, 14% of
those who graduated from high school, 25% of those who completed
some college and 21% of those who graduated from college.

Age is presently one of the most significant correlates of marihuana
use. Among the total population, those who have tried or used mari-
huana at least once, termed ever-users, are heavily concentrated in the
16-25 age bracket. Of all the ever-users, about half are in this group.
At the same time, however, we should emphasize that use is by no means
confined to teenagers and young adults.

The proportion of individuals in different age groups who have
used marihuana is indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. MARIHUANA EXPERIENCE BY AGE

Percent who have ever used marihuana (solid line)
and of adults who use it now (dotted line)

AGE

The incidence of use is greatest among young people: 27% of the
16-17 year olds, 40% of the 18-21 year olds, and 38% of the 22-25
year olds have tried marihuana; at the low extremes, 6% of the 12-13
year olds and 6% of the over-50 generation have used the drug.

Among those now in school, incidence also seems to rise with in-
creasing school level : Ever-users represent 44% of those persons now
in college or graduate school; 30% of high school juniors and seniors;
17% of freshmen and sophomores; and 8% of students in junior high
school.

At the same time, the use of the drug among adults is by no means
confined to college students. Even among the 18-25 year olds, 75%
of the ever-users are not now in school.

The initial patterns of contemporary marihuana use appear to
be shifting ; there is a trend toward increased use among college stu-
dents as well as non-college students. Non-student users now span
social class, income level and occupational classification. In addition,
the proportion of users increases during the teens, peaks during the
young adult years and then falls off rapidly (Figure 1).

Having described the incidence of any use of marihuana ever , and
demographic characteristics of the 24 million Americans who have
tried the drug, we recognize the need to place this information into
perspective. The policymaker must also be concerned with the patterns
of use: frequency, amount consumed at each smoking, and duration
of use.

PATTERNS OF USE

The most striking of the use patterns revealed in the National Sur-
vey is that 41% of the adults and 45% of the youth who have ever used
marihuana reported that they no longer use the drug. Twenty-nine
percent of the adults and 43% of the youth reported that they are still
using marihuana (see Table 1) . When asked why they had terminated
use, the overwhelming majority of adults (61%) specified, among
other reasons, that they had simply lost interest in the drug.

Table 1.— EXPERIENCE WITH MARIHUANA

Frequency

Percent of ever-users

Adults Youth

(18 and (12-17)
over)

Designation

Have used marihuana but no longer

45 I

use.

Once a month or less

Experimenters.

2-3 times per month

10 1

^Intermittent users.

Once per week

9 J

Several times per week

4 1

| Moderate users.

Once daily

More than once daily

Heavy users.

No answer

These data indicate that at least 41% of the adults and 45% of the
youth have used marihuana but have discontinued use; 9% of the
adults and 15% of the youth use the drug sporadically, once a month

or less. These persons can be characterized as experimental marihuana
users.*

To ensure an understanding of this section of the Report, some
definitions are required at this juncture. In this Report, the Com-
mission employs the following designations:

Frequency of Use

Experimental — At least one trial to once a month or less.

Intermittent — Two to 10 times monthly.

Moderate — 11 times monthly to once daily.

Heavy — Several times daily.

Very Heavy — Almost constant intoxication with potent prepara-
tions ; brain rarely drug free.

Duration of Use

Short Term — Less than two years.

Long Term — Two to 10 years.

Very Long Term — Over 10 years.

Twelve percent of the adults and 19% of the youth who have ever
used marihuana can be designated intermittent users; they continue
to use the drug more than once a month, but less than several times
a week, probably on weekends. Six percent of the adults and five per-

*AU respondents for the National Survey were asked to complete a self-
administered questionnaire. This instrument covered many sensitive areas, in-
cluding a series of items on personal experience with marihuana and other
drugs. Given the nature of the questions, the contractor took every precaution
to insure that the interviewee responded honestly and that his responses were
kept strictly confidential. Even the interviewer who orally administered the
rest of the Survey was not permitted to view the written instrument.

One of the inevitable costs of such confidentiality is the risk that a certain
percentage of respondents would not complete one or more of the questions.
Where a significant number of questions remained unanswered, the question-
naire was not tabulated at all. However, in 30 % of the otherwise complete
questionnaires, the adult respondents who had ever used the drug did not answer
the question, “On the average, about how often do you use marihuana at the
present time?”

Concerned about the meaning of this non-response rate, the Commission di-
rected the contractor to conduct a detailed analysis comparing the non-respond-
ents with all respondents and with those individuals who had never used mari-
huana at all. On the basis of this analysis, we are confident that the overwhelm-
ing majority, if not all, of the non-respondents are experimenters.

In the first place, the demographic characteristics of the non-respondents co-
incide closely with those of the non-users and less frequent users. Very few of the
young adults, where more frequent use is concentrated, failed to respond.

Secondly, the non-respondents are disproportionately located in the geographic
regions where use was least prevalent and least frequent For example, 50%
of the ever-users in the North Central region failed to respond, compared to 7%
in the West. Yet only 5% of the ever-users in the North Central region continue
to use the drug more than once a week, compared to 21% in the West ; and less
than .5% of the ever-users in the North Central region use the drug more than
once a day, as compared to 4% in the West.

cent of the youth are moderate users who continue to use marihuana
several times a week to once daily.

Finally, 2% of the adults and 4% of the youth who have ever used
marihuana are heavy users: they use the drug several times daily.
A very small fraction of these heavy users may be very heavy users,
who are intoxicated most of their waking hours and probably use
very potent preparations of the drug.

In addition to frequency, duration of use is an important variable
in discussing use patterns and especially when considering drug
effects. Most users in this country have smoked the drug over a
short term , that is, less than two years. Others have used the drug
over a long term , two to 10 years. Very few Americans can be con-
sidered very long term users , that is, over 10 years.

Another important element of use is the amount of marihuana used
on each occasion. Most intermittent and moderate users average about
one-half to one cigarette per occasion, usually at night. Most heavy
users smoke at least one to two cigarettes an occasion, with a few
using as many as five consecutively.

As this brief description of use patterns suggests, marihuana use
and the marihuana user do not fall into simple, distinct classifications.
Although it is possible to sketch profiles of various marihuana-using
populations, no valid stereotype of a marihuana user or non-user can
be drawn. The spectrum of individuals who use or have used mari-
huana varies according to frequency, intensity and duration of use.
It is meaningless to talk of “the marihuana user” or “marihuana use”
without first clarifying descriptive data.

PROFILES OF USERS

Several studies by the Commission and many other recent college and
high school surveys have elucidated a variety of personality types
or categories of marihuana users. These profiles relate primarily to
the patterns depicted above and to the meaning of marihuana use
for various individuals. Essentially we will describe a continuum
with much overlapping among the categories. The reader should
understand that group identification is at best a hazardous occupation ;
the traits described are not exclusive to marihuana users. A much
larger number of individuals who have not used the drug can be
similarly described.

Experimental Users

The first and by far the largest group has been designated as “experi-
menters” because of their extremely infrequent or non-persistent mari-
huana usage. Experimentation with the drug is motivated primarily
by curiosity and a desire to share a social experience. These experi-

menters are characteristically quite conventional and practically indis-
tinguishable from the non-user in terms of life style, activities, social
integration, and vocational or academic performance.

Disciplined, optimistic, and self-confident, experimenters appear
to be as conventional, responsible, goal-oriented and orderly as
non-users.

Intermittent Users

The intermittent users are motivated to use marihuana for reasons
similar to those of the experimenters. They use the drug irregularly and
infrequently but generally continue to do so because of its socializing
and recreational aspects. For the intermittent user, marihuana often
contributes to the establishment and solidification of close social
relations among users similarly inclined. The individual has a sense
of belonging to an intimate group.

Investigations of behavioral aspects of marihuana smoking clearly
demonstrate that marihuana smoking is a social activity, believed by
intermittent users to enhance the enjoyment of shared activities,
especially music, art, films and food.

In a Commission-sponsored study to determine the effects of repeat
doses of marihuana, under free access conditions, the subjects smoked
almost exclusively in groups. A certain number of these individuals
tended to share much of their leisure time in common activities, and
marihuana smoking was the focal activity around which other types
of social interactions revolved, such as conversation, watching TV,
listening to music and playing games. The intermittent users studied
exhibited an increased sense of well-being, relaxation, and friendliness
during these activities. They were more inclined to seek and emphasize
the social rather than personal effects of the drug.

Intermittent marihuana users, like the experimenters, are generally
conventional in most respects. They are more liberal politically and
socially and they tend to stress education for personal improvement
rather than for recognition or high grades. Like many non-users,
these individuals are likely to be self-expressive, intellectually and
culturally oriented, creative, and flexible. Placing a high value on ex-
perimentation and responsible, independent decision-making, they
often manifest a desire to search for new experiences, resulting in some
behaviors which depart from the norms of the larger society. Often
accompanying their search is a sense of uncertainty about the future.

Moderate and Heavy Users

The final groups of marihuana users are the moderate and heavy
users. This range is wide and includes individuals who use marihuana
more than 10 times a month to several times a day. Practically all of
the American research effort to date has focused on the large majority

of individuals who use less often, that is, the experimental and inter-
mittent users. Consequently, not enough is known about characteristics
and bdhavior of the moderate and the heavy users, so it is difficult to
distinguish accurately between the two groups. We suspect however
that the moderate users share traits with both the intermittent and
the heavy users. Having already discussed the intermittent group, we
will now turn to the characteristics of the heavy group.

Heavy users seem to need the drug experience more often. Their
initial and continued marihuana use is motivated not only by curiosity
and an urge to share a social experience but also by a desire for “kicks,”
“expansion of awareness and understanding,” and relief of anxiety or
boredom.

Generally, the heavy marihuana user’s life style, activities, values
and attitudes are unconventional and at variance with those of the
larger society. These individuals are more pessimistic, insecure, irres-
ponsible, and non-conforming. They find routine especially distaste-
ful. Their behavior and mood are restless and uneven.

Heavy users place particularly strong emphasis on impulsive re-
sponse in the interest of pleasure-seeking, immediate gratification,
and individual expression. They tend to evidence social and emotional
immaturity, are especially indifferent to rules and conventions, and
are often resistant to authority. However, several surveys have also
revealed that they tend to be curious, socially perceptive, skillful and
sensitive to the needs of others, and possess broadly based, although
unconventional, interests.

The Boston free-access study permitted the Commission to observe
a group of individuals whose life styles, activities, values and attitudes
are representative of a segment of the unconventional youthful sub-
culture. The month-long period of controlled study during the fall
prevented the participation of individuals who were married, steadily
employed, or enrolled in school.

Individuals who smoked marihuana once a week or less were sought
by the researchers but were exceedingly unusual among the population
available for the study. Consequently, the group studies contrasted
with the student and full-time working populations in which weekly
marihuana use is more common. For this reason, the intermittent
users studied appeared to be similar to, rather than different from, the
moderate and heavy users studied. Both groups had used marihuana
for an average of five years.

Under the study’s confined conditions, participants tended to smoke
more marihuana than they did “on the outside.” The intermittent
users, who by our definition averaged eight times a month under out-
side conditions, averaged three cigarettes a day during the study. The
range was from one-half to six cigarettes daily.

The moderate and heavy users, who “on the outside” averaged 33

times a month, now averaged six-and-a-half cigarettes a day. The
range was three-and-a-half to eight cigarettes. In discussing the Bos-
ton study, we will call this group “daily” users.

Smoking usually occurred at night, sometimes during the after-
noon and only occasionally upon awakening. The intermittent and
heavy users usually smoked one cigarette a session. The daily users
were more likely to smoke more than one a session. A few individuals
in the daily group could have been considered constantly intoxicated
on a few occasions during the 21 -day period.

The mean age of the subjects studied was 23. Based on IQ testing,
they were superior intellectually, although they had completed, on
the average, only two-and-a-half years of college. Their job histories
were rather erratic, characteristic of a pattern of itinerant living. The
intermittent users were from a middle or upper class background,
while the daily users generally shared a lower socioeconomic status.
Broken homes and instances of alcohol or drug abuse were more com-
mon in the family backgrounds of the daily users.

Alcohol was rarely used by the subjects. Use of hallucinogens and
amphetamines was significantly more widespread and had begun
earlier in the daily user group. In contrast to the intermittent group,
the daily users almost uniformly reported that marihuana smoking
produced relaxation, noting also increased alteration in perception or
psychedelic-like effects. Similarly, they reported an increased sense
of well-being, friendliness, carefreeness and decreased hostility.
Additionally, the daily users appeared to demonstrate a moderate
psychological dependence on the marihuana experience while the inter-
mittent users demonstrated little or no psychological dependence.

Analysis of social-behavioral aspects of daily users’ marihuana
smoking clearly demonstrated that it is a pivotal social activity around
which conversation, other personal interactions, and much of the users’
lives revolve. Smoking almost exclusively occurred in groups and
was the focal activity around which these groups formed. The daily
users exhibited a readiness to take part in but not to initiate a smoking
session.

In contrast to the intermittent users, all the daily users in a group
smoked when marihuana was made available. Marihuana smoking ap-
peared to be a primary means of reinforcing group solidarity. Yet
these users were more inclined to seek the personal effects of the drug
rather than the socializing effects sought bv the intermittent users.

The social adjustment of the daily users, when judged from a tradi-
tional psychiatric standpoint, was impaired. Individuals tended to be
more withdrawn and to interact less with each other than the inter-
mittent users, regardless of the type of activity or state of intoxica-
tion. However, the daily users did appear to accommodate themselves
better than the intermittent users to the effects of the intoxication on
social interaction.

456-964 0 - 72 -4

Despite a relatively high level of scholastic attainment and superior
intelligence, many of the subjects were performing well below their
intellectual capability, usually working at menial, mechanical or arti-
san tasks. They were not oriented toward achieving the traditional
goals of the larger society.

Nonetheless, during the period of the Boston study, the subjects
could not be characterized as displaying a general lassitude and in-
difference, carelessness in personal hygiene or lack of productive activ-
ity, all supposed to be characteristic of very heavy use. Even during
the periods of heaviest marihuana smoking, they maintained a high
level of interest and participation in a variety of personal activities,
such as writing, reading, keeping up on current world events, and
participating in athletic and aesthetic endeavors.

Additionally, all of the subjects maintained a desire to complete
all aspects of the research study. Although they could be labeled
“underachievers” in terms of the traditional standards of the larger
society, these individuals were motivated to pursue actively the inter-
ests and activities of their own subculture.

Generally, most studies which have been undertaken indicate that
individuals who are heavy marihuana users cannot find a place for
themselves in conventional society. Their heavy marihuana use may
reflect and perhaps perpetuate their unconventionality while provid-
ing social acceptance in one of the non-conventional subcultures.

Very Heavy Users

The Commission’s analysis of frequency, quantity and duration
of marihuana use suggest that the United States is at the present
time in a fortunate position. All of the studies available to the Com-
mission have indicated that only a minute number of Americans can
be designated as very heavy marihuana users. These studies uniformly
indicate that chronic, constant intoxication with very potent cannabis
preparations is exceedingly rare in this country.

The Commission believes that important distinctions must be made
between the daily (moderate and heavy) American marihuana user
and the very heavy hashish or charas user in other parts of the world
where cannabis is widely cultivated and its use deeply ingrained.
Many of the North African and Asian users do not employ the drug
only as an intoxicant in the western sense. Instead, it is frequently
used in “folk medical practice,” in religious rites and as a work ad-
junct particularly in those occupations which are physically demand-
ing, monotonous, unintellectual, and offer little possibility of
advancement.

In these countries, very heavy use is typically associated with young
males from a lower socioeconomic background. Nonetheless, use is

more widespread among all ages and elderly chronic users are not
uncommon.

Generally, these very heavy users consume high amounts of very
potent preparations continually throughout the day so that they are
rarely drug-free. These individuals evidence strong psychological
dependence on the drug, requiring compulsive drug-taking. Clear-cut
behavioral changes occur in these extreme cases. The very heavy user
tends to lose interest in all activities other than drug use. A common
element of the behavioral pattern is lethargy and social deterioration.
Not surprisingly, these users have been held in low esteem and very
heavy use has been subject to societal disapproval in almost all
countries.

BECOMING A MARIHUANA USER

Our attempt to classify marihuana users is primarily for descriptive
purposes. It does not imply that all individuals who resemble any
of the categories are necessarily marihuana users. Nor is it implied
that all marihuana users fit neatly or precisely into these slots. There
is no “typical” marihuana user, just as their is no typical American.
The most notable statement that can be made about the vast majority
of marihuana users — experimenters and intermittent users — is that
they are essentially indistinguishable from their non-marihuana using
peers by any fundamental criterion other than their marihuana use.

But if most users and non-users of marihuana essentially are in-
distinguishable, why have some people chosen to use the drug and
others not, and why have some people continued to use it and others
not ? An important part of the explanation is that use of marihuana,
like all human behavior, occurs within specific social and cultural set-
tings. The individual’s biological characteristics and personality
probably play an important role in determining the pattern his use will
take. However, the cultural and social setting play a larger role in
determining whether he will use it at all.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the young person who
chooses to use marihuana differs in some important sociological re-
spects from his peer who does not choose to do so. These differences
relate to his willingness to experiment with a drug, especially a for-
bidden one. In short, the process of becoming a marihuana user is not
a “seduction of the innocent” as is often portrayed. Based on inter-
related familial, social and cultural factors, persons, especially
young persons, who may choose to use marihuana can be predicted
statistically.

Parental Influence

The decision to use marihuana is related to parental life style.
Parents provide the most important example of acceptable drug-taking

behavior for their children. That marihuana users frequently have
medicine-taking, cigarette-smoking, or liquor- drinking parents has
been demonstrated. In a series of Canadian studies, grade and high
school students who said their mothers took tranquilizers daily were
three times more likely to try marihuana than the students who did
not so report.

Beyond the influence of a drug-taking example, parents have the
primary influence on their childrens’ acquisition of skills, values and
attitudes necessary to be mature and responsible adults. Many parents
have oriented their children toward becoming independent, com-
petent, educated, and adaptive adults.

Simultaneously, many young people observe in their parents’ lives
the trend toward shorter work periods, earlier retirement and in-
creased emphasis on leisure time activities. It appears that the inci-
dence of adolescent marihuana use is strongly correlated with this
trend toward increased leisure time.

Situational Factors and Behavioral Correlates

All studies of the ever user, including the Commission-sponsored
National Survey, have established that marihuana smoking is signifi-
cantly correlated with a number of demographic variables. Males,
college students, and residents of metropolitan areas, especially in the
Northeast and West, are generally over-represented in proportion to
their percentage of the total population.

Among the behaviors statistically correlated with marihuana use
are radical politics, visits to psychiatrists, sexual freedom, and sepa-
rate residences from parents. The most significant behavior seems to
be use of legal drugs, especially alcohol and tobacco. Young people
who choose to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally the same
people, socially and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and
tobacco. For example, in a study of high school youngsters, only 3%
of all the non-smokers in the sample had ever tried marihuana, com-
pared with 50% of all the current cigarette smokers. Similarly, for
alcohol drinking outside the family setting, only 2% of all the non-
drinkers had tried marihuana, as compared to 27% of the drinkers.
The National Survey tends to confirm the close association between
marihuana use and cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Among all the
adults sampled in the Survey, 71% had smoked cigarettes and 39%
are current smokers. Similarly, of adult non-marihuana users, 70%
have smoked cigarettes and 38% are current smokers. These percent-
ages increase somewhat for marihuana users : 87 % have smoked cigar-
ettes and 54% are current cigarette smokers.

In regard to alcohol consumption, 40% of all the adults sampled
indicated that they had not consumed beer or hard liquor in the 30

days prior to the survey. Marihuana users tended to have consumed
alcohol more often than non-marihuana users (Table 2) .

Table 2.— LIQUOR CONSUMPTION DURING 30-DAY PERIOD

0 days

1-4

days

5-10

days

11 or
more
days

answer

Percent of nonmarihuana users. .
Percent of marihuana users

Social Group Factors

One of the most influential factors in determining behavior in con-
temporary America among adolescents and young adults is peer group
influence. Knowing other people who use marihuana predisposes the
individual to use marihuana, and having marihuana-using friends
provides the social opportunity for the curious. The individual who
is already part of a social group which uses marihuana indicates by
this choice that his attitudes and values are already to some degree
compatible with illicit drug use.

Social peer groups are especially influential upon individuals who
have not yet become “successful” adults, such as adolescents, college
students and young adults, who spend a great deal of time and effort
competing for status in situations where status opportunities are mini-
mal. The social peer group provides an opportunity for achieving
status among equals by demonstrating competence and autonomy.
Outstanding performance in athletics, organizations or academics
demonstrates competence but not autonomy because these activities
are adult-oriented and controlled. Additionally, only a relative few
are able to excel.

Opportunity to prove oneself is more readily available in the
peer group. Often, adolescents participate in forms of delinquent
behavior, termed symbolic infractions, in order to demonstrate
autonomy and competence to their peers. These include joy-riding,
vandalism, sexual promiscuity, underage drinking, violation of rules
of decorum and dress, and purposeless confrontation with authority.

Marihuana use has recently been added to the list of infractions
and offers several advantages for adolescents and young adults. Most
important, it provides a shared group experience which offers the shy,
lonely, socially awkward neophyte a means of entrance to the group,
complete with its own ceremonial initiation. Repetition of the behavior
serves to increase closeness and commitment to the group. Usually the
experience is pleasurable and the individual is able to control his level
of intoxication. This delinquency is viewed as relatively harmless to

oneself and others, although its symbolic impact on parents and au-
thority is often greater than that of other common infractions.

Therefore, a subtle process of acquiring attitudes favorable to drug
use, of having friends and acquaintances who define the marihuana
experience in acceptable and pleasurable terms, and of having a social
belief system which prepares one to accept the conversion process to ... S
begin with, are all powerful complementary factors which direct a
young person toward marihuana use. At this point, the use of mari-
huana provides further opportunities for acquiring new marihuana-
using friends and entering the social milieu of marihuana users.

The Dynamics of Persistent Use

The cultural and social factors sketched above, in combination
with the individual’s somatic and psychic characteristics, determine
the pattern of his drug behavior once he has chosen to experiment
with it. The majority of individuals who reach this point progress no
further and often discontinue marihuana use. The most common
explanation for discontinuing use is loss of interest ; the effect lost its
novelty and became boring. Other less common reasons are fear of
legal hazards, social pressure, and concerns over physical and mental
drug effects. Among the infrequently noted reasons are : interference
wiflTbther activities ; replacement by alcohol ; unavailability ; cost ;
unpleasant experiences; fear of moral transgression; or progression
to other forms of non-drug interests such as yoga, transcendental
meditation, agrarian communes, esoteric religion and restrictive diets.

For those who continue use, psychosocial factors are important
determinants of the use patterns. Many marihuana users are strongly
committed to traditional society in which they desire to rise socially.
They have chosen to participate fully in the traditional adult-oriented
activities and the formal achievement- reward system. Their peer
groups consist primarily of similarly oriented individuals. The in-
frequent use of marihuana by these persons is a social activity for fun
and satisfies^riosity?1

Those individuals who continue to use marihuana more frequently
appear to be different types of people and oriented toward a different
part of the social system. Most of them maintain stable career orienta-
tions and continue to function within the broader society. But they
feel more burdened by the traditional system of social controls and
more removed from contemporary society’s institutions. These indi-
viduals tend to turn away from more traditional adult-oriented reward
systems and intensify their peer-group orientation. Their interests
and activities emphasize an informal ain-crowd,” out-of-school or
work orientation. The meaning of marihuana use by this peer group
emphasizes the ideological character of usage. In contrast to the infre-

quent type of user, these individuals seem to build their self-identity
around the marihuana-using peer group.

BECOMING A MULTIDRUG USER

The more one smokes marihuana, the more involved his inter-
personal relationships are likely to become with his peers who share
the experience with him. As he spends more time with this group,
he begins to sever his contacts with conventional individuals and con-
ventional routines. He may eventually view himself as a drug user
and be willing to experiment with other drugs which are approved by
his peer group. Only a small portion of the marihuana users who reach
this stage are likely to become persistent, frequent users of these
other drugs. The majority appear to experiment only.

Epidemiologic Studies

The Commission’s studies have confirmed the association between
marihuana usage and the consumption of other drugs for curiosity and
pleasure. This association holds for all drugs, including over-the-
counter and prescription pain relievers, tension relievers, sleeping pills,
and stimulants as well as hashish, methamphetamines, cocaine, LSD
and mescaline, and heroin. The National Survey showed that cur-
rent marihuana users are about twice as likely to have used any illicit
drugs than are those who have ceased using marihuana (Table 3) .

Table 3.— ILLICIT DRUG USE BY ADULTS

Have used Currently
but no using

Substance .Never used marihuana longer use marihuana

marihuana (percent)
(percent)

Hashish Less than 0.5 percent 28 63

LSD or mescaline Less than 0.5 percent. .. . 11 28

Methamphetamine . Less than 0.5 percent. .. . 10 23

Cocaine Less than 0.5 percent. .. . 4 10

Heroin Less than 0.5 percent 1 4

The Commission additionally has contracted a study of 105 selected,
middle class, young, working adults from California who are mari-
huana smokers. Of this sample, 11% were daily marihuana users and
47% used it several times a week; 33% used it several times a month;
6% used it once to several times a year; and 3% had used it but were
not currently using marihuana. The study indicates that while most
of the subjects were frequent marihuana users, the incidence of other
drug use was relatively low (Table 4) .

Table 4.-FREQUENCY OF OTHER DRUG USE BY MARIHUANA USERS

Percent who use marihuana

Percent

Substance who Once to Several Several

never several times times Daily
used times a month a week

marihuana a year

Hashish 42 31 21 5 0

LSD 96 4 0 0 0

Mescaline 79 19 0 0 2

Psilocybin 96 4 0 0 0

STPf DMT 100 0 0 0 0

Heroin 98 2 0 0 0

Codeine 87 11 0 0 2

Amphetamines 89 7 0 4 0

Barbiturates 86 10 4 0 0

Cocaine 75 19 2 4 0

Glue... 100 0 0 0 0

With the exception of marihuana and hashish, no drug was used
by more than 25% of this population and this use was almost exclu-
sively experimental. Interestingly, the more exotic drugs, mescaline
and cocaine were more frequently used (21% and 25% of this sample
respectively) than the common dangerous drugs: LSD (4%), heroin
(2%), codeine (11%), barbiturates (14%), and amphetamines
(11%).

Among high school students, marihuana is normally the first illicit
drug used, although several recent studies have suggested that a
significant number of students initiate illicit use with other drugs. Of
the marihuana users, a majority have used no other illicit drug, and
they tend to be experimental or intermittent users of marihuana.

The more frequently the adolescent uses marihuana, the more likely
he is to experiment with other drugs. For example, in one recent study
of San Diego high school students of predominantly white middle
socioeconomic background, 80% of the students who used marihuana
weekly or more often had used other drugs, and 50% of this group had
used LSD. In contrast, 38% of the less than weekly users had used other
drugs.

Profiles and Dynamics

The personality profile of the heavy marihuana user discussed
earlier includes elements propelling him toward heavy involvement in
the multiple-drug-using-subculture. Heavy drug use by these indi-
viduals may reflect and aggravate a total alienation and disaffiliation
from American society and its institutions. This group hopes to find
in drug use more than simple fun or relief from boredom. The heavy

use of drugs represents a shift into the drug subculture and an adoption
of a totally new life style. Some observers feel that this shift provides a
new identity which allows the individual to counteract his apathy and
search for meaning in a society he views as unloving, lonely, and mean-
ingless. He seeks to become involved with what he describes as the
exciting, relevant, “real'* experience of life. Additionally, he believes
drug use provides new feelings and awareness needed to overcome
barriers between himself, others, and the natural world.

The drug culture as a community also helps to meet the needs of the
individual. It provides a ready supply of drugs, unites common exper-
iences and secrets that enhance the drug experience, and protects the
individual against undesired experiences and against “the outside
world." Most important, the culture instills self-confidence by reas-
suring the individual that he has been wise in choosing this new
identity.

Frequently, these are individuals who express feelings of loneli-
ness, isolation and over-protection from their home and family. One
frequent pattern involves an intimate, dominating mother and a distant,
unemotional father. In some cases, the drug-use ritual and the. sense
of community closeness offered by the drug subculture appear to
satisfy certain personal needs. Additionally, joining the subculture
provides a release from sheltered life, a test of competence, an oppor-
tunity to participate, and a chance to express anger. When the anger is
turned inward instead of directed at society and family, drug use
becomes a form of passive self-destructiveness.

Sociocultural Factors

After the individual views himself as a drug user and has become
immersed in the drug-using subculture, the drugs he chooses to experi-
ment with and his pattern of use are determined primarily by non-drug
factors well beyond the simple properties of the psychoactive chemical.
These factors are predominantly socioeconomic and sociocultural,
although psychic and somatic factors also play a role in determining
who will continue and how intensively.

The availability of a distribution system which stocks the other
drugs is essential. Most often, contact with this distribution system is
increased by having friends or acquaintances who use or sell other
drugs. However, much of the marihuana selling takes place at the
customer level between friends, and involves little profit and relatively
small quantities of the drug. The marihuana user who only buys has
little contact with the professional multidrug dealing system. However,
the user -buyer- seller of marihuana is more involved with the multi-
drug system, uses more himself and has more friends who use and sell
other drugs. This factor of being a seller rather than only a buyer-user

is influential in determining the degree of an individual’s involvement
with and commitment to the use of other drugs.

Marihuana use does not itself determine which drugs the heavily-
involved user will choose to use. Generally, the selection of other drugs
is influenced by the social group. For example, blacks and whites have
roughly equal rates of trying and using marihuana, but their choice of
other drugs and the styles of drug use are quite different and distinctive,
due to their frequently different sociocultural backgrounds. Addi-
tionally, one recent study of white high school and college students
revealed different patterns of further drug use among males and
females. Men and women used marihuana in equal numbers, but the
men who used other drugs tended to use hallucinogens while the women
tended to use amphetamines.

An extensive survey of drug use among 3,500 liberal arts under-
graduates attending 14 campuses in the New York area demonstrated
the racial character of drug use among this population (Table 5).

Table 5. — RACIAL CHARACTER OF DRUG USE

Meth-

Amphet-

Hallu-

Percentage tried drugs

Heroin Cocaine

amphet-

amine

cinogens

Blacks

9 16

Whites

4 7

According to recent studies, heroin usage is not common among
white marihuana users. Heroin is most strongly linked to marihuana
use in black and Spanish-speaking ghettos where many feel they have
little chance of personal advancement and self-fulfillment. In such
communities, a segment of the population constructs new illegitimate
but accessible avenues for social coping. For some this involves the
hustle (non-violent stealing) and the excitement of obtaining and
using heroin and cocaine. They regard marihuana as a “cool” drug and
use it for its social and calming effects.

In contrast, studies have demonstrated that the psychedelics are
more often used by the white, middle to upper middle class, college-
educated populations. The typical use of these drugs in high school
college and working populations is episodic and experimental, and is
usually discontinued rather rapidly in contrast with marihuana use,
which for many persons is of long duration. In many instances, psy-
chedelic drug use begins almost simultaneously with marihuana.

For a few, drug use becomes an ideologic focus, reflecting disillu-
sionment with society and rejection of the “establishment.” These and
other motives, including mere pleasure- seeking, lead to continued use
of LSD and other hallucinogens. Marihuana is viewed as a dilute LSD

and is often used to enhance or prolong the effects of that drug. Some-
times it is encountered after first LSD use.

Methamphetamine, or “speed,” use is more characteristic of those
lower socioeconomic white youth who are not school or work oriented.
Living for the moment is the characteristic attitude of the speed scene.
The speed user views marihuana as he does alcohol and uses it for fun
or for its calming effects.

For these three groups of illicit drug users, marihuana use has dif-
ferent meanings and is secondary in importance to the use of the other
drugs. Whether or not marihuana leads to other drug use depends on
the individual, on the social and cultural setting in which the drug
use takes places, and on the nature of the drug market. Its use, how-
ever, is neither inevitable nor necessary.

The Effects of Marihuana on the User

The previous section has attempted to paint a broad picture of the
marihuana user. This section will deal with the drug and its effects on
these individuals.

The meaning of drug often varies with the context in which it is
used. The physician would define a drug as any substance used as a
medicine in the treatment of physical or mental disease. Today, due to
the influence of many factors, the layman may focus on the negative
connotations of drugs, such as the stupefying, poisoning, habit- form-
ing misuse of the opiate drugs. The considerably wider and more sci-
entific definition of a drug which will be used in this section is : any
chemical substance which has an action on living tissues.

A psycho active drug is any substance capable of modifying mental

performance and individual behavior by inducing functional or

pathological changes in the central nervous system .

As defined, psychoactive drugs exert their major effect on the state
of the mind including emotions, feelings, sensibility, consciousness and
thinking. The definition implies neither positive nor negative meanings.
Chemical substances are not inherently good or bad. All substances,
including medicines and foods, which man has chosen to consume have
certain desired effects (whether therapeutically beneficial or pleasura-
ble) and undesired effects (whether detrimental or unpleasant). For
example, eating food is certainly a necessary and pleasurable activity.
However, obesity plays an important role in many diseases, including
diabetes, high blood pressure and heart attacks, and tends to limit
physical activities.

The classification of any drug effect as either beneficial or harmful
often greatly depends on the values the classifier places on the ex-

pected effects. This is especially relevant with respect to the psycho-
active drugs such as tranquilizers, stimulants, coffee, cigarettes, al-
cohol, marihuana and other licit or illicit drugs. For all of these drugs,
the weights of benefit and harm are difficult to determine when viewed
merely in terms of their stated effects.

BOTANY AND CHEMISTRY

Marihuana refers to a preparation derived from a plant, cannabis
sativa L. The preparation contains varying quantities of the flowers
and their resinous secretions, leaves, small stems and seeds. These plant
parts contain many chemical substances. The chemical substance which
produces the major drug effects is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Ac-
cording to current information, the amount of THC present deter-
mines the potency of the preparation. Hereinafter, any reference to
drug content or drug effect of marihuana will, for all practical pur-
poses, mean that of tetrahydrocannabinol.

The drug content of the plant parts is variable, generally decreasing
in the following sequence: resin, flowers, leaves. Practically no drug
is found in the stems, roots or seeds. The potency and resulting drug
effect of marihuana fluctuates, depending on the relative proportions
of these plant parts in the marihuana mixture.

Most marihuana available in this country comes from Mexico and
has a THC content of less than 1%. Marihuana of American origin
often contains less than two-tenths of 1% THC. Marihuana originat-
ing in Jamaica and Southeast Asia often has a 2% to 4% THC content.

Marihuana is the least potent preparation of the plant. Jamaican
ganja, containing primarily the flower tops and the small leaves or
bracts, has a THC content of about 4% to 8% depending on the mix-
ture. Indian ganja is less potent. The most potent preparation is
hashish (charas) which is composed of only the drug-rich resinous
secretions of the flowers. Generally, the THC content of hashish is
5% to 12%.

FACTORS INFLUENCING DRUG EFFECT

A number of variable factors exert an important influence on the
psychopharmacologic effects of marihuana in man, as is true for all
drugs. Failure to take these factors into consideration probably ac-
counts for a large part of the inconsistency and controversy surround-
ing the description of the drug effect.

Dosage

The dosage or quantity of the drug (tetrahydrocannabinol) con-
sumed is the most important variable. As with most drugs, the larger
the dose taken, the greater the physical and mental effect will be and

the longer the effect will last. The effect of a high dose of marihuana
on an individual would be quite different from the effect of a low,
usual “social” dose.

Method of Use

The method of use has a bearing upon the drug effect. The method l
is directly related to both dosage and time lapse before the drug effect
is felt. Injection directly into a vein delivers the total dose immediately,
producing a rapid, maximal response of minimal duration. Smoking
and inhalation cause rapid but less efficient delivery of the dose;
variable quantity of the drug is destroyed during burning or escapes
into the air and does not reach the lungs. Oral ingestion produces
different effects, according to the system in which the drug is dispersed. .
Generally, oral ingestion diminishes the drug effect, but prolongs it. )

Metabolism

Another factor which influences the effect of the drug is metabolism.
During the metabolic process, the body cells, principally in the liver
and lungs, chemically alter drug substances, changing their activity
(4 nd providing for their elimination from the bod^Jlncreasing evidence
indicates that marihuana is first changed by the body in a way that
activates or enhances the drug effect and is subsequently altered in a
way that inactivates the drug prior to its removal from the body.

The rate and direction of these metabolic steps can significantly in-
fluence the effect of marihuana. For instance, individuals with exten-
sive exposure to marihuana or oth^r drugs metabolize more rapidly,
and perhaps differently, from those individuals with no drug exposure.

Set and Setting

An important variable in discussing the effect of marihuana on the
user is the social and emotional environment ; that is, the individual’s
“set” and “setting.”

“Set” refers to a combination of factors that create the “internal
environment” of the individual, including personality, life style, and
philosophy, past drug experiences, personal expectations of drug
effect, and mood at the time of the drug experience.

“Setting” refers to the external environment and social context
in which the individual takes the drug. These factors are most in-
fluential when drugs are taken at low dosages and, like marihuana,
produce minimal physical and subtle subjective mental effects. The
effect of marihuana generally will be quite different for an intermittent
social adult smoker from that of a youth deeply involved in the youth-
ful drug subculture. These factors partially account for the belief
of a marihuana user that he is experiencing a “high” in certain ex-

periments even when he is given a non-marihuana substance (placebo)
but is told it is marihuana.

Tolerance

Another important factor that determines the immediate effect of
any drug is tolerance. Tolerance has two different connotations. The
first, initial tolerance, is a measure of the amount of a drug which a
subject must receive on first exposure to produce a designated degree
of effect. A variety of innate and environmental factors contributes
to initial tolerance among individuals. Different individuals require
varying amounts of the drug to attain the same physical and mental
effect.

The second connotation, which shall be inferred to when we use the
word tolerance, is that of an acquired cliange in tolerance. That is,
within the same individual, as a result of repeated exposure to the
drug, the same dose of the drug may produce a diminishing effect so
that an increased amount of the drug is required to produce the same
specified degree of effect.

Tolerance develops at differential rates to given effects of the same
drug. If tolerance has developed to one specific effect, it has not neces-
sarily developed to other specific effects.

By definition, the development of tolerance is neither beneficial nor
detrimental. If tolerance develops rapidly to the desired mental effect
of a “high” but slowly to the behavioral or physical effects, rapid
increase in dose would be necessary in order to have the desired effect,
and progressive behavioral and physical disruption would be seen.
This is the pattern for amphetamines.

However, if tolerance develops slowly or not at all to the desired
mental effects but more rapidly to the behaviorally or physically dis-
ruptive effects, no dosage increase or only a slight one would be neces-
sary and the unpleasant and undesired effects would progressively
diminish.

With regard to marihuana, present indications are that tolerance
does develop to the behaviorally and physcially disruptive effects, in
both animals and man, especially at high frequent doses for prolonged
time periods. Studies in foreign countries indicate that very heavy
prolonged use of very large quantities of hashish leads to the develop-
ment of tolerance to the mental effects, requiring an increase in intake
to reach the original level of satisfaction. However, for the inter-
mittent use pattern and even the moderate use pattern, little evidence
exists to indicate the development of tolerance to the desired “high,”
although the high may persist for a shorter time period. During the
Boston free-access study, no change was apparent in the level of the
high produced by a relatively large dose of the drug over a 21-day
period of moderate to heavy smoking.

The fact that some individuals smoke more of the drug than others
may merely reflect a desire for a different level of "high." There is a
tendency to develop a tolerance to the physical effects and behaviorally
disruptive effects, especially the depressant effects, in heavy daily
users. The development of such behavioral tolerance of this nature
may explain the fact that experienced marihuana smokers describe a
lower occurrence rate of undesirable drug effects. The development
of tolerance may also explain why these smokers exhibit normal
behavior and competent performance of ordinary tasks, while not
appearing intoxicated to others even though they are at their usual
level of intoxication.

Reverse Tolerance

Repeated exposure to marihuana has been said to cause an indi-
vidual to need lesser amounts of the drug to achieve the same degree
of intoxication. This "reverse tolerance" may be related to one’s learn-
ing to get high or to the recognition of the subtle intoxication at low
doses. Or perhaps, such tolerance reflects an increase in the body’s
ablity to change the drug to an active chemical. To date, the existence
of “reverse tolerance" has not been substantiated in an experimental
setting.

Duration of Use

Tolerance development is only one of a variety of occurrences which
possibly are related to repetitive use of marihuana. Any discussion of
drug effect must also take into account the time period over which the
drug use occurs. Immediate effects of a single drug experience must
be contrasted with effects of short-term use and the effects of long-
term use in order to detect any cumulative effects or more subtle,
gradually occurring changes.

This issue of an individual’s change over a period of years is quite
complex ; a multitude of factors other than marihuana use may affect
his life. As previously defined, short-term refers to periods of less
than two years, long-term to periods of two to 10 years, and very
long-term to periods greater than 10 years. Most of the American
experience involves short-term and long-term use, with low doses of
weak preparations of the drug.

Patterns of Use ^

The drug effect of marihuana can be realistically discussed only
within the context of who the user is, how long he has used marihuana,
how much and how frequently he uses it, and the social setting of his

use.

JL/^In general, for virtually any drug, the heavier the pattern of use{
greater the risk of either direct or indirect damagejFoFpurposes
of this discussion, the patterns of use developed in~tKefirst section of
this chapter will be utilized. Because frequency of use is presently the
primary determinant of use patterns in this country, we employ simi-
lar designations :

(1) The experimenter who uses marihuana at most a few times
over a short term and then generally ceases to use it, or uses
once a month or less ;

(2) The intermittent user who uses marihuana infrequently, that
is more than once monthly but less than several times a week ;

(3) The moderate user who uses it from several times a week to
once daily, generally over a long term ;

(4) The heavy user who uses it several times a day over a long term
and;

V (5) The very heavy user who is constantly intoxicated with high
tetrahydrocannabinol content preparations, usually hashish,
over a very long term.

Again, these classifications are not intended to be rigid but are designed
to facilitate a discussion of the many usage patterns.

Definition of Dependence

Before describing the effect of marihuana on the user, two additional
definitions are required. They concern the concept of dependence
which has so clouded public and professional consideration of psycho-
active drugs. Throughout the remainder of this report, we refer sepa-
rately to psychological and physical dependence, defined as follows :
Psychological dependence is the repeated use of psychoactive drugs
leading to a conditioned pattern of drug-seeking behavior. The in-
tensity of dependence varies with the nature of the drug, the method,
frequency, and duration of administration, the mental and physical
attributes of the individual, and the characteristics of the physical
and social environment. Its intensity is at its peak when drug-seeking
becomes a compulsive and undeviating pattern of behavior.

Physical dependence is the state of latent hyper-excitability which
develops in the central nervous system of higher mammals following
frequent and prolonged administration of the morphine-like anal-
gesics, alcohol, barbiturates, and other depressants. Such dependence
is not manifest subjectively or objectively during drug administra-
tion. Specific symptoms and signs, the abstinence syndrome, occur
upon abrupt termination of drug administration ; or with morphine-
like agonists by administering the specific antagonists.

EFFECTS RELATED TO PATTERN USE

Set out below is a brief summary of effects of marihuana related to
frequency and duration of use. The remainder of the Chapter discusses
the effects of immediate, short-term, long-term and very long-term
use of the drug.

Experimenters and

intermittent users Little or no psychological dependence.

Influence on behavior related largely to
conditioning to drug use and its social
value to the user.

No organ injury demonstrable.

Moderate users Moderate psychological dependence in-

creasing with duration of use.

Behavioral effects minimal in stable per-
sonalities, greater in those with emo-
tional instability.

Probably little if any organ injury.

Duration of use increases probability of
escalation of all effects including shift
from moderate to heavy use.

Heavy users American “pot head.”

Strong psychological dependence.

Detectable behavior changes.

Possible organ injury (chronic diminu-
tion of pulmonary function).

Effects more easily demonstrable with
long-term use.

Very heavy users Users in countries where the use of can-

nabis has been indigenous for
centuries.

Very strong psychological dependence
to point of compulsive drug seeking
and use.

Clear-cut behavioral changes.

Greater incidence of associated organ
injury.

IMMEDIATE DRUG EFFECTS

The immediate effects are those which occur during the drug intox-
ication or shortly following it. The user is aware of some of these
effects, for they often cause him to use the drug. At the same time,
many changes may occur in his body which can be measured by others
but are not obvious to him.

456-964 0-72-5

Subjective Effects

A description of an individual’s feelings and state of consciousness
as affected bv low doses of marihuana is difficult : the condition is not
similar to usual waking states and is the result of a highly individual
experience. Perhaps the closest analogies are the experience of day
dreaming or the moments just prior to falling asleep. The effect is
not constant and a cyclical waxing and waning of the intensity of the
intoxication occurs periodically.

At low, usual “social” doses, the intoxicated individual may experi-
ence an increased sense of well-being: initial restlessness and hilarity
followed by a dreamy, carefree state of relaxation ; alteration of sen-
sory perceptions including expansion of space and time; and a more
vivid sense of Touch. sightTsmell. taste, and sound ; a feeling of hunger,
especially a craving for sweets ; and subtle changes in thought forma-
tion and expression. To an unknowing observerTanmdividual in this
Estate of consciousness would not appear noticeably different from his
normal state.

At higher, moderate doses, these same reactions are intensified but
the changes in the individual would still be scarcely noticeable to an
observer. The individual may experience rapidly changing emotions,
changing sensory imagery, dulling of attention, more altered thought
formation and expression such as fragmented thought, flight of ideas,
impaired immediate memory, disturbed associations, altered sense of
self-identity and, to some, a perceived feeling of enhanced insight.

At very high doses, psychotomimetic phenomena may be experi-
enced. These include distortions of body image, loss of personal iden-
tity* sensory and mental illusions, fantasies and hallucinations.

I Nekrly all persons who continue to use marihuana describe these
usual effects in largely pleasurable terms. However, others might
call some of these same effects unpleasant or undesirable.

As discussed earlier, a wide range of extra-drug factors also influ-
ences marihuana’s effects. The more the individual uses marihuana
and the longer he has been using it, the more likely the experiences
will be predominantly pleasurable, and the less likely the effects will
be unpleasant. An increasing sensitization to those effects viewed as
pleasant occurs as the user has more experience with the drug.

Persons subject to unpleasant reactions may eliminate themselves
from the using group although the occasional experience of an un-
J pleasant effect does not always discourage use.

Body Function

A large amount of research has been performed in man and ani-
mals regarding the immediate effect of marihuana on bodily proc-
esses. No conclusive evidence exists of any physical damage, disturb-

ances of bodily processes or proven human fatalities attributable
solely to even very high doses of marihuana. Recently, animal studies
demonstrated a relatively large margin of safety between the psycho-
active dose and the physical and behavioral toxic and lethal dose. Such
studies seemed to indicate that safe human study could be under-
taken over a wide dose range.

Low to moderate doses of the drug produce minimal measurable
transient changes in body functions. Generally, pulse rate increases,
recumbent blood pressure increases slightly, and upright blood pres-
sure decreases. The eyes redden, tear secretion is decreased, the pupils
become slightlyjmaller. the fluid pressure within the eye lessens and
one study reports that the eyeball rapidly oscillates (nystagmus) .

A minimal decrement in maximum muscle strength, the presence
of a fine hand tremor, and a decrease in hand and body steadiness
have also been noted. Decreased sensitivity to pain and overestima-
tion of elapsed time may occur.

The effects of marihuana on brain waves are still unclear and incon-
sistent. Generally, the intoxication produces minimal, transient
changes of rapid onset and short duration. Sleep time appears to
increase as does dreaming.

Investigation of the effects of marihuana on a wide variety of
other bodily function indices has revealed few consistently observed
changes. * — “

These few consistently observed transient effects on bodily function
seem to suggest that marihuana is a rather unexciting compound of
negligible immediate toxicity at the doses usually consumed in this
country. The substance is predominantly a psychoactive drug. The
feelings and state of consciousness described by the intoxicated seem
to be far more interesting than the objective state noted by an observer.

Mental Function

Marihuana, like other psychoactive substances, predominantly
affects mental processes and responses (cognitive tasks) and thus the
motor responses directed by mental processes (psychomotor tasks).
Generally, the degree of impairment of cognitive and psychomotor
performance is dose-related, with minimal effect at low doses. The
impairment varies during the period of intoxication, with the maximal
effect at the peak intoxication. Performance of simple or familiar tasks
is at most minimally impaired, while poor performance is demon-
strated on complex, unfamiliar tasks. Experienced marihuana users
commonly demonstrate significantly less decrement in performance
than drug-naive individuals.

The greater his past marihuana experience, the better the intoxicated
individual is able to compensate for drug effect on ordinary perform-
ance at usual doses. Furthermore, marked individual variation in

performance is noted when all else is held constant. The effect of
marihuana on cognitive and psychomotor performance is therefore
highly individualized and not easily predictable. Effects on emotional
reactions and on volition are equally variable and are difficult to
measure under laboratory conditions, but can be significant.

The Intoxicated State

Studies of intoxicated persons have suggested possible explanations
for the subtle effects on mental processes produced by marihuana.
Generally, a temporary episodic impairment of short-term memory
occurs. These memory voids may be filled with thoughts and per-
ceptions extraneous to organized mental processes. Past and future may
become obscured as the individual focuses on filling the present momen-
tary memory lapse. His sense of self-identity may seem altered if
he cannot place himself in his usual time frame.

This altered state of mind may be regarded by the individual as
pleasant or unpleasant. The important factors of dosage and set and
setting play a most important role in this determination. When the
nature of the drug-taking situation and the characteristics of the
individual are optimal, the user is apt to describe his experience as
one of relaxation, sensitivity, friendliness, carefreeness, thoughtful-
ness, happiness, peacefulness, and fun. For most marihuana users who
continue to use the drug, the experience is overwhelmingly
pleasurable.

Unpleasant Reactions

However, when these circumstances are not optimal, the experience
may be unpleasant and an undesirable reaction to the marihuana
intoxication occurs. In these instances, anxiety, depression, fatigue
or cognitive loss are experienced as a generalized feeling of ill-being
and discomfort. A heavy sluggish feeling, mentally and physically,
is common in inexperienced marihuana smokers who overshoot the
desired high or in persons who might orally ingest too large a dose.
Dizziness, nausea, incoordination, and palpitations often accompany
the “too stoned” feeling.

Anxiety States

“Novice anxiety reactions” or feelings of panic account for a major-
ity of unpleasant reactions to marihuana. When the distortion of self-
image and time is recognized by the individual as drug- induced and
temporary, the experience is viewed as pleasurable. Anxiety and panic
result when these changes cause the individual to fear that the loss of
his identity and self-control may not end, and that he is dying or

“losing his mind.” These anxiety and panic reactions are transient
and usually disappear over a few hours as the drug?s effects wear off.
or more quickly with gentle friendly reassurance.

The large majority of these anxiety reactions occur in individuals
who are experimenting with marihuana. Most often these individuals
have an intense underlying anxiety surrounding marihuana use, such
as fears of arrest, disruption of family and occupational relations,
and possible bodily or mental harm. Often they are older and have
relatively rigid personalities with less desire for new and different
experiences.

The incidence of these anxiety reactions may have decreased as mari-
huana use has become acceptable to wider populations, as the fears
of its effects have lessened and as users have developed experience in
management of these reactions.

Psychosis

Pare cases of full-blown psychotic episodes have been precipitated
by marihuana. Generally, the individuals had previous mental dis-
orders or had poorly developed personalities and were marginally ad-
justed to their life situation. Often the episode occurred at times of
excessive stress. These episodes are characteristically temporary.
Psychotherapy and sometimes medications are useful in prompt con-
trol and treatment of this psychological reaction. In addition, rare
nonspecific toxic psychoses have occurred after extremely high doses.
This state of nonspecific drug intoxication or acute brain syndrome
is self-limited and clears spontaneously as the drug is eliminated
from the body.

Conclusions

In summary, the immediate effect of marihuana on normal mental
processes is a subtle alteration in state of consciousness probably related
to a change in short-term memory, mood, emotion and volition. This
effect on the mind produces a varying influence on cognitive and
psychomotor task performance which is highly individualized, as well
as related to dosage, time, complexity of the task and experience of
the user. The effect on personal, social and vocational functions is
difficult to predict. In most instances, the marihuana intoxication is
pleasurable. In rare cases, the experience may lead to unpleasant
anxiety and panic, and in a predisposed few, to psychosis.

SHORT-TERM EFFECTS

The effect of an enormous daily oral dose of the drug (up to about
one hundred thousand times the minimal behaviorally effective human
dose) was recently studied in rats and monkeys for three months. A

severe, generalized nervous system depression was evident the first
few days. Evidence of cumulative toxicity was observed at these doses.
Severe central nervous system depression produced fatalities in some
rats in the first few days until tolerance developed. Later, extreme
hyperactivity developed.

The monkeys experienced severe central nervous system depression
and one group showed mild hyperactivity, but all rapidly returned to
normal behavior after the development of tolerance to these effects.
Minimal dose-related toxic effects on bodily organs were noted at
autopsy at the conclusion of the experiment. These non-specific find-
ings of unknown meaning included hypocellularity of the bone marrow
and spleen and hypertrophy of the adrenal cortex.

A 28-day study employing intravenous administration of from one
to ten thousand times the minimal effective human dose to monkeys
produced similar findings clinically. In the high dose groups delayed
deaths from acute hemorrhagic pneumonia were possibly caused by
accumulation of clumps of THC in the lung producing irritation
similar to that seen at the injection sites. No other organ pathology
was noted. These animal studies illustrated that the margin of safety
between active dose and toxic dose was enormous.

A few studies have recently been carried out to observe the effect of
a few weeks of daily marihuana smoking in man. The amount smoked
was a relatively large American dose. Frequency of use was once to
several times daily.

During the 21-day Boston free-access study, no harmful effects were
observed on general bodily functions, motor functions, mental func-
tions, personal or social behavior or work performance. Total sleep
time and periods of sleep were increased. Weight gain was uniformly
noted.

No evidence of physical dependence or signs of withdrawal were
noted. In the heaviest smokers, moderate psychological dependence
was suggested by an increased negative mood after cessation of
smoking.

Tolerance appeared to develop to the immediate effects of the
drug on general bodily functions (pulse rate) and psychomotor-cogni-
tive performance (time estimation, short-term memory, and shooting-
gallery skill) but not to the “high.” Marihuana intoxication did not
significantly inhibit the ability of the subjects to improve with practice
through time on these psychological-motor tasks.

Neither immediate nor short-term (21 day) high-dose marihuana
intoxication decreased motivation to engage in a variety of social and
goal- directed behaviors. No consistent alteration that could be related
to marihuana smoking over this period of time was observed in work
performance of a simple task, participation in aspects of the research
study, or interest and participation in a variety of personal activities,

such as writing, reading, interest and knowledge of current world
events, or participation in athletic or aesthetic activities.

Marihuana smoking appeared to affect patterns of social inter-
actions. Although use of the drug was found to be a group social
activity around which conversation and other types of social behavior
were centered, it was not uncommon for some or all of the smokers
to withdraw from the social interaction and concentrate on the sub-
jective drug experience.

During the first part of the smoking period, both intermittent and
daily users demonstrated a marked decrement in total interaction.
Total interaction continued to diminish among intermittent users but
increased above presmoking levels among the daily users during
the later parts of the smoking period. The quality of the interaction
was more convivial and less task-oriented when marihuana was avail-
able to the group.

Additionally, an assessment of the effect of marihuana on risk-
taking behavior revealed that daily users tended to become more
conservative when engaging in decision-making under conditions of
risk.

LONG-TERM EFFECTS

Our knowledge about marihuana is incomplete, but certain be-
havior characteristics appear to be emerging in regard to long-
term American marihuana use which, for the most part, is significantly
less than 10 years. These impressions were confirmed in the Boston
free-access study. The group of American young adults studied aver-
aged five years (range 2-17 years) of intermit tent or daily use of
marihuana.

No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could
be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking. Some abnormality
of pulmonary f miction was demonstrated in many of the subjects
which could not be correlated with quantity, frequency or duration of
smoking marihuana and/or tobacco cigarettes. (One other investiga-
tion recently completed uncovered no abnormalities in lung or heart
functioning of a group of non-cigarette smoking heavy marihuana
users). Many of the subjects were in fair to poor physical condition,
as judged by exercise tolerance.

The performance of one-fifth of the subjects on a battery of tests
sensitive to brain function was poorer on at least one index than would
have been predicted on the basis of their IQ scores and education. But
a definite relationship between the poor test scores and prior mari-
huana or hallucinogen use could not be proven.

In the past few years, observers have noted various social, psycho-
logical and behavioral changes among young high school and college-
age Americans including many who have used marihuana heavily for

a number of years. These changes are reflected by a loss of volitional
goal direction. These individuals drop out and relinquish traditional
adult roles and values. They become present rather than future ori-
ented, appear alienated from broadly accepted social and occupational
activity, and experience reduced concern for personal hygiene and
nutrition.

Several psychiatrists believe they have detected clinically that some
heavy marihuana-using individuals appear to undergo subtle changes
in personality and modes of thinking, with a resulting change in life
style. In adopting this new life style, a troubled youth may turn
toward a subculture where drug use and untraditional behavior are
acceptable.

This youthful population resembles in many respects the marihuana
smoker described in the Boston study. No evidence exists to date to
demonstrate that marihuana use alone caused these behavioral
changes either directly or indirectly. Many individuals reach the same
point without prior marihuana use or only intermittent or moderate
use ; and many more individuals use marihuana as heavily but do not
evidence these changes. For some of these young people, the drop out
state is only a temporary phase, preceding a personal reorganization
and return to a more conventional life style.

If heavy, long-term marihuana use is linked to the formation of
this complex of social, psychological iand behavioral changes in young
people, then it is only one of many contributing factors.

VERY LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF HEAVY AND
VERY HEAVY USE

Knowledge of the effects of very heavy, very long-term use of mari-
huana by man is still incomplete. The Commission has extensively re-
viewed the world literature as well as ongoing studies in J amaica and
Greece, and carefully observed very heavy, very long-term using pop-
ulations in countries in other parts of the world, such as Afghanistan
and India. These populations smoke and often drink much stronger
drug preparations, hashish and ganja, than are commonly used in
America. From these investigations, some observable consequences are
becoming much clearer.

Tolerance and Dependence

Some tolerance does occur with prolonged heavy usage ; large drug
doses are necessary for the desired effects. Abrupt withdrawal does
not lead to a specific or reproducible abstinence syndrome and physical
dependence has not been demonstrated in man or in animals. The very
heavy users studied did evidence strong psychological dependence,
but were able to cease use for short periods of time. In these users,

withdrawal does induce symptoms characteristic of psychological de-
pendence. The anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, and other non-specific
symptoms of withdrawal are very similar in kind and intensity to
those experienced by compulsive cigarette smokers.

Although the distress of withdrawal exerts a very strong psycho-
genic drive to continue use, fear of withdrawal is, in most cases, not
adequate to inspire immediate criminal acts to obtain the drug.

General Body Function

In the Jamaican study, no significant physical or mental abnormal-
ities could be attributed to marihuana use, according to an evaluation
of medical history, complete physical examination, chest x-ray, electro-
cardiogram, blood cell and chemistry tests, lung, liver or kidney func-
tion tests, selected hormone evaluation, brain waves, psychiatric
evaluation, and psychological testing. There was no evidence to indi-
cate that the drug as commonly used was responsible for producing
birth defects in offspring of users. This aspect is also being studied
further.

Heavy smoking, no matter if the substance was tobacco or ganja,
was shown to contribute to pulmonary functions lower than those
found among persons who smoked neither substance. All the ganja
smokers studied also smoked tobacco. In Jamaica, ganja is always
smoked in a mixture with tobacco; and many of the subjects were
heavy cigarette smokers, as well.

In a study of a Greek hashish-using population preliminary find-
ings revealed poor dentition, enlarged livers, and chronic bronchitis.
Further study is required to clarify the relationship of these to hash-
ish use, alcohol or tobacco use, or general life style of this user
population.

Social Functioning

Similarly, the Jamaican and Greek subjects did not evidence any
deterioration of mental or social functioning which could be attributed
solely to heavy very long-term cannabis use.

These individuals appear to have used the drug without noticeable
behavioral or mental deviation from their lower socioeconomic group
norms, as detected by observation in their communities and by exten-
sive sociological interviews, psychological tests and psychiatric
examination.

Overall life style was not different from non-users in their lower
socioeconomic community. They were alert and realistic, with average
intelligence based on their education. Most functioned normally in
their communities with stable families, homes, jobs, and friends. These
individuals seem to have survived heavy long-term cannabis use with-
out major physical or behavioral defects.

Mental Functioning

The incidence of psychiatric hospitalizations for acute psychoses
and of use of drugs other than alcohol is not significantly higher than
among the non-using population. The existence of a specific long-
lasting, cannabis- related psychosis is poorly defined. If heavy cannabis
use produces a specific psychosis, it must be quite rare or else exceed-
ingly difficult to distinguish from other acute or chronic psychoses.

Becent studies suggest that the occurrence of any form of psychosis
in heavy cannabis users is no higher than in the general population.
Although such use is often quite prevalent in hospitalized mental
patients, the drug could only be considered a causal factor in a few
cases. Most of these were short-term reactions or toxic overdoses. In
addition, a concurrent use of alcohol often played a role in the episode
causing hospitalization.

These findings are somewhat surprising in view of the widespread
belief that cannabis attracts the mentally unstable, vulnerable individ-
ual. Experience in the United States has not involved a level of heavy
marihuana use comparable to these foreign countries. Consequently,
such long-lasting psychic disturbances possibly caused by heavy can-
nabis use have not been observed in this country.

Motivation and Behavioral Change

Another controversial form of social-mental deterioration allegedly
related to very long-term very heavy cannabis use is the “amotivational
syndrome.” It supposedly affects the very heavy using population and
is described world-wide as a loss of interest in virtually all activities
other than cannabis use, with resultant lethargy, amorality, instability
and social and personal deterioration. The reasons for the occurrence
of this syndrome are varied and hypothetical ; drug use is only one of
many components in the socioeconomic and psychocultural back-
grounds of the individuals.

Intensive studies' of the Greek and Jamaican populations of heavy
long-term cannabis users appear to dispute the sole causality of canna-
bis in this syndrome. The heavy ganja and hashish using individuals
were from lower socioeconomic groups, and possessed average intelli-
gence but had little education and small chance of vocational advance-
ment. Most were married and maintained families and households.
They were all employed, most often as laborers or small businessmen,
at a level which corresponded with their education and opportunity.

In general, their life styles were dictated by socioeconomic factors
and did not appear to deteriorate as a result of cannabis use. The
Jamaicans were working strenuously and regularly at generally un-
interesting jobs. In their culture, cannabis serves as a work adjunct.
The users believe the drug provides energy for laborious work and
helps them to endure their routine tasks.

In contrast, others hare described Asian and African populations
where heavy to very heavy hashish or charas smoking for a very long
time is associated with clear-cut behavioral changes. In these societies,
the smokers are mostly jobless, illiterate persons of the lowest socio-
economic backgrounds. They generally begin to use the drug in their
early teens and continue its use up to their 60’s.

The users prefer to smoke in groups of two to 20, generally in a
quiet place out of the reach of non-smokers. Weakness, malnutrition
and sexual difficulties, usually impotence, are common. Some of them
report sleep disturbances.

Most users who have used the drug for 20 to 30 years are lazy and
less practical in most of their daily acts and reluctant to make deci-
sions. However, their ability to perform non-complicated tasks is as
good as non-smokers.

Although the smokers think they become faster in their daily work,
a general slowness in all their activities is noticed by others. This user
population is typically uncreative. They make little if any significant
contribution to the social, medical or economic improvement of their
community.

SUMMARY

Once existing marihuana policy was cast into the realm of public
debate, partisans on both sides of the issue over-simplified the question
of the effects of use of the drug on the individual. Proponents of the
prohibitory legal system contended that marihuana was a dangerous
drug, while opponents insisted that it was a harmless drug or was less
harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

~~Ahy psychoactive drug is potentially harmful to the individual,
depending on the intensity, frequency and duration of use. Marihuana
is no exception. Because the particular hazards of use differ for diT"
ferent drugs, it makes no sense to compare the harmfulness of different
drugs. One may compare, insofar as the individual is concerned, only
the harmfulness of specific effects. Is heroin less harmful than alcohol
because, unlike alcohol, it directly causes no physical injury? Or is
heroin more harmful than alcohol because at normal doses its use is
more incapacitating in a behavioral sense ?

Assessment of the relative dangers of particular drugs is meaningful
only in a wider context which weighs the possible benefits of the drugs,
the comparative scope of their use, and their relative impact on soci-
ety at large. We consider these questions in the next Chapter, particu-
larly in connection with the impact on public health.

Looking only at the effects on the individual, there is little proven
danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or
intermittent use of the natural preparations of cannabis, including the
resinous mixtures commonly used in this country. The risk of harm

lies instead in the heavy, long-term use of the drug, particularly of
the most potent preparations.

The experimenter and the intermittent users develop little or no
psychological dependence on the drug. No organ injury is
demonstrable.

— — Some moderate users evidence a degree of psychological dependence
which increases in intensity with prolonged duration of use. Behav-
ioral effects are lesser in stable personalities but greater in those with
^ emotional instability. Prolonged duration of use does increase the
probability of some behavioral and organic consequences including
the possible shift to a heavy use pattern.

The heavy user shows strong psychological dependence on mari-
huana and often hashish. Organ injury, especially diminuation of
pulmonary function, is possible. Specific behavioral changes are de-
tectable. All of these effects are more apparent with long-term and very
long-term heavy use than with short-term heavy use.

The very heavy users, found in countries where the use of cannabis
has been indigenous for centuries, have a compulsive psychological
dependence on the drug, most commonly used in the form of hashish.
Clear-cut behavioral changes and a greater incidence of associated
biological injury occur as duration of use increases. At present, the
Commission is unaware of any similar pattern in this country.

Ill

social Impact
ol marihuana use

“Man is a creature who lives not
upon bread alone but principally by catchwords.”

— Robert Louis Stevenson,
V irginia Puerisque (1881)

Implicit in existing social and legal policy toward marihuana is
the view that society suffers in some way from use of the drug. When
the widespread practice of marihuana smoking appeared in the United
States in the early decades of the 20th century, the medical, law
enforcement, newspaper, and legislative communities immediately
indicted the drug. They assumed that the drug posed serious dangers
to individual health ; but more importantly, they viewed it as a menace
to the public order. Crime, insanity and idleness were thought to be
the inevitable consequences of its use.

That some of these original fears were unfounded and that others
were exaggerated have been clear for many years. Yet, many of these
early beliefs continue to affect contemporary public attitudes and
concerns. Consequently, one of the Commission's most important tasks
is to evaluate carefully all data relevant to the social impact of mari-
huana use. We must determine whether and in what respects social
concern is justified. Wliat is myth and what is reality?

The literature pertaining to the presumed effects and consequences
of marihuana use still reveals a wide diversity of opinion about social
impact. Careful scrutiny is inhibited by the prevalence of hearsay,

rhetoric and undocumented assertions about the effects and conse-
quences of marihuana use. Nonetheless, evidence is mounting and a
number of significant trends have recently emerged. In the previous
Chapter we exp]ored the evidence regarding the nature and scope of
contemporary marihuana use, and the effects of the drug on the indi-
vidual user. Now we must consider the impact on society of behavior
resulting from use of marihuana.

In dealing with the behavioral consequences of marihuana use, the
Commission has made a concerted effort to review and evaluate the
enormous body of existing popular and scientific literature, and has
itself initiated new empirical research, including national surveys,
retrospective studies and controlled laboratory experiments.

Awareness of the difficulties involved in investigating an inherently
complex social phenomenon and applying its research findings to policy
decisions has fostered particular sensitivity to the quality of previous
and Commission-sponsored research. As such, considerable attention
was given to sudh basic research questions as :

• What behavioral effects are most relevant in assessing the conse-
quences of marihuana use ?

• What measures produce the most valid data concerning given
effects ?

• What reliance should be placed on various research techniques,
such as self-reporting, controlled experiments, clinical observations
and statistical relationships ?

• What generalizations can be made from particular populations
studied ?

• What are the limits of given data in terms of inference, inter-
pretation and attribution of cause ?

With respect to the Commission’s own research program, the process
of selection and allocation of resources was indeed difficult, and some
areas of inquiry have undoubtedly been either neglected or short-
changed. Nonetheless, we believe that the studies undertaken and
information gathered will add significantly to our understanding of
the conditions and circumstances under which marihuana use is likely
to affect adversely the public safety, public health and welfare, and
dominant social order.

Marihuana and Public Safety

The belief that marihuana is causally linked to crime and other
antisocial conduct first assumed prominence during the 1930’s as the
result of a concerted effort by governmental agencies and the press to
alert the American populace to the dangers of marihuana use. News-
papers all over the country began to publish lurid accounts of “mari-
huana atrocities.” In the absence of adequate understanding of the

effects of the drug, these largely unsubstantiated stories profoundly
influenced public opinion and gave birth to the stereotype of the
marihuana user as physically aggressive, lacking in self-control, ir-
responsible, mentally ill and, perhaps most alarming, criminally
inclined and dangerous. The combination of the purported effects of
the drug itself plus the belief that it was used by unstable individuals
seemed to constitute a significant danger to public safety.

Now, more than 30 years later, many observers are skeptical about
the existence of a cause-effect relationship between marihuana use
and antisocial conduct.

MARIHUANA AND CRIME

Over the years, there have been several hypotheses about the relation-
ship between marihuana and antisocial conduct. The earliest view was
that marihuana causes or leads to the commission of aggressive and
violent criminal acts such as murder, rape and assault. These acts are
committed, it has been argued, because marihuana allegedly produces a
relaxation of ordinary inhibitions, a weakening of impulse control and
a concomitant increase in aggressive tendencies while the user is under
its influence.

Marihuana's alleged criminogenic role is not always limited to
violent or aggressive behavior. Some commentators also postulate that
marihuana leads to or causes non-violent forms of criminal or delin-
quent conduct, ranging from sexual promiscuity to grand larceny.
Underlying this second causal hypothesis are the assumptions that
marihuana frequently impairs judgment, distorts reality and dimin-
ishes, at least temporarily, the users sense of personal and social
responsibility. Regular or heavy use over an extended period of time
is felt to interfere, perhaps irreversibly, with the orderly development
of psychosocial and moral maturity.

AuS indicated above, however, a growing uncertainty prevails about
the existence of a causal link between marihuana use and antisocial
conduct. In fact, recent surveys, including several sponsored by
the Commission, suggest that large segments of the professional pub-
lic, particularly the law enforcement and criminal justice commu-
nities, are no longer willing to assert a cause-effect relationship but
observe, instead, the existence of a statistical association.

The Issue of Cause and Effect

The controversy over the cause-effect relationship between mari-
huana use and criminal, violent or delinquent behavior poses a num-
ber of serious problems for the investigator. Proponents and oppo-
nents of the causal view tend to rely on different kinds of evidence
and to call upon different types of experts, thereby differing sub-

stantially in the kinds of information they accept as relevant, reliable
or valid.

Practitioners, such as police and probation officers for example,
frequently cite case examples in which apprehended offenders are
found to be in possession of marihuana at the time of arrest. The
mere presence of the drug or the fact that an offender is a known
user of marihuana is sometimes deemed sufficient to establish a causal
link between the marihuana and the offense.*

Empiricists, on the other hand, would deny that the simple presence
of the drug constitutes a satisfactory demonstration of a causal rela-
tionship between marihuana use and the crime in question. They would
defer, instead, to the results of empirical studies designed explicitly
to test the assertion. Essentially, they emphasize that even if some
offenders do use marihuana, an equal or larger number of offenders
do not, and there are certainly large numbers of marihuana users
in the population-at-large who never engage in the kinds of antisocial
conduct deemed to be related to or caused by the use of the drug.

Proving any positive and direct relationship, be it causal or other-
wise, between two inherently complex social phenomena is fraught
with enormous difficulties. The relationship of marihuana use to crime,
violence, aggression or juvenile delinquency presents no exception.
Before examining the evidence with respect to the existence of a causal
connection, certain basic considerations deserve at least brief mention
here.

To prove the existence of a positive and direct relationship, one
would be required to demonstrate that the alleged offender was, in-
deed, a marihuana user; that he was under the influence of the drug
at the time he committed the offense ; and that the crime was directly
attributable to the effects of the marihuana. The kinds of evidence
necessary to establish these facts are not easy to obtain.

First, evidence of the use of marihuana by the accused is generally
dependent upon either direct admission of use, hearsay evidence, or
inferences derived from knowledge of possession (that is, the offender
was found to have marihuana on his person or in his possession at
the time of arrest) .

Second, because no chemical tests presently exist outside the labora-

*In the widely publicized Licata case of the 1930’s, for example, a 16-year-old
cannabis user was charged with the ax murder of his family and the offense
was direct1 y attributed to the effects of marihuana. There was, however, no
precise information available regarding the use of marihuana in relation to
the crime. Nor, in the various accounts of the case, was there generally any
reference to the fact that several of the boy’s relatives had previously been
committed to mental institutions ; that the po’ice had, about one year prior to
the offense (and presumably before the youth’s alleged use of marihuana)
attempted to commit him for his bizarre behavior; or that shortly after the
crime, the boy began to exhibit the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.

tory to identify the presence of marihuana in the body of the accused,
it is difficult if not impossible to proye that the offender was definitely
under the influence of marihuana when he committed the offense.

Third, in order to proye that the marihuana represented the sig-
nificant contributory or precipitating yariable, all other factors pos-
sibly related to the offense would hare to be examined and excluded.

The problems of ralidation are further compounded by additional
variations in behavior attributable to: (a) the pharmacological po-
tency of the drug; (b) possible adulteration of the marihuana; (c)
the interaction of marihuana with other drugs simultaneously in-
gested: (d) differing individual response to similar dosage levels;
(e) the time-action function; (f) the cumulative effect of marihuana
use ; and (g) various social, psychological and situational variables
such as set and setting, individual expectations, personal predisposi-
tions or preexisting impulse disorders.

Despite the inherent complexities of the issue and the difficulties in
securing reliable and valid evidence, a relatively large body of research
is now available pertaining to the criminogenic effects of marihuana
upon the individual and the nature and extent to which the drug con-
stitutes a danger to public safety. In the following section, we present
the available evidence and assess the strength and direction of the al-
leged relationships between marihuana use and violent or aggressive
behavior and also non-violent forms of criminal and delinquent
behavior.

Marihuana and Violent Crime

As indicated earlier, the belief that marihuana causes or leads to the
commission of violent or aggressive acts first emerged during the
1930‘s and became deeply embedded in the public mind. Until recently,
however, these beliefs were generally based on the anecdotal case ex-
amples of law enforcement authorities, a few clinical observations and
several quasi-experimental studies of selected populations comprised
of military offenders, convicted or institutionalized criminals or delin-
quents and small groups of college students. Few efforts were made to
compare the incidence of violent or aggressive behavior in representa-
tive samples of both user and non-user populations.

Even in these early observations and investigations, however, no
substantial evidence existed of a causal connection between the use of* V*
marihuana and the commission of violent or aggressive acts. Indeed,
if any relationship was indicated, it was not a positive and direct
causal connection but an inverse or negative statistical correlation, v V"r

Kather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its
purported effects of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse con-
trol and heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually
found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses bv pacifying

456-964 0 - 72 -6

the user, interfering with muscular coordination, reducing psycho^
motor activities and generally producing states of drowsiness, leth-
argy, timidity and passivity.

In fact, only a small proportion of the marihuana users among any
group of criminals or delinquents known to the authorities and ap-
pearing in study samples had ever been arrested or convicted for such
violent crimes as murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault or armed
robbery. When these marihuana -using offenders were compared with
offenders who did not use marihuana, the former were generally found
to have committed less aggressive behavior than the latter.

In an effort to accumulate data on the relationship between mari-
huana use and aggressive or violent criminal behavior, the Commis-
sion sponsored several studies designed to assess the purported causal
relationship.

First, the Commission wanted to tap the unique experience of the
law enforcement and criminal justice communities. Representative
samples of prosecuting attorneys, judges, probation officers and court
clinicians were asked their opinions about the relationship between
marihuana use and the commission of aggressive or violent criminal
acts. When asked to evaluate the statement that “most aggressive acts
or crimes of violence committed by persons who are known users of
marihuana occur when the offender is under the influence of mari-
huana,” three-quarters of the judges, probation officers and clinicians
indicated either that the statement was probably untrue or that they
were unsure of its accuracy. Of these three groups, a greater propor-
tion of clinicians (76.5%) thought the statement false than did the
probation officers (60%) and judges (44.2%).

In a separate mail survey of the chief prosecuting attorneys in the
50 states — the group which has often supported the causal hypoth-
esis— 52% of the respondents stated that they either did not believe
or were uncertain of the truth of the proposition that use of marihuana
leads to aggressive behavior.

We have already noted that only a small fraction of the offender
populations in past studies were found to have been arrested for crimes
of violence. Similarly, in a Commission-sponsored study of 1,776 16-
to-21-year-olds arrested in five New York counties for marihuana
law violations between 1965 and 1969, only a small percentage had
either previously or subsequently come to the attention of authorities
for such offenses as assault or robbery. In fact, less than 1% of the
offenders in this sample had been arrested for these offenses prior to
their first marihuana arrest, and less than 3% w^ere known to the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation for these offenses subsequent to their
marihuana violation.

Perhaps more important than professional opinion or the incidence
of violent offenses in an offender population, however, is the deter-

urination of the extent to which marihuana use is related to violent
or aggressive behavior in the general population.

In a Commission-sponsored survey, face-to-face interviews were
conducted with a representative sample of 559 West Philadelphia
residents in order to ascertain the extent of marihuana use in this
heterogeneous population and the relative involvement of marihuana
users and non-users in violent criminal behavior. In corroboration of
the earlier findings, the researchers found no significant differences
in the proportions of users and non-users who stated that they had
committed any of the aggressive or violent crimes enumerated.

Further, no findings indicated that marihuana was generally or
frequently used immediately prior to the commission of offenses in
the very small number of instances in which these offenses did occur.

In contrast, however, the aggressive and violent offenders in this sam-
ple did report with significantly greater frequency the use of alcohol
within 24 hours of the offense in question.

These findings should be considered in light of an earlier West
Coast study of disadvantaged minority-group youthful marihuana
users, many of whom were raised in a combative
miTjeip similar to that

sampled neighborhoods. The data show that marihuana users were
much less likely to commit aggressive or violent acts than were those
who preferred amphetamines or alcohol. They also show that most
marihuana users were able to condition themselves to a void aggressive
behavior even in the face of provocation. In fact, marihuana was found
to play a significant role in youtlvs transition from a “rowdy” to a
“cool,” non-violent style.

The Commission is aware of the claim that a few emotionally un-
stable or impulsive individuals have become particularly aggressive
or impulsive under the influence of marihuana. As we have noted,
some newspaper accounts have attributed sensational homicides or
sexual assaults to marihuana -induced transitory psychotic states on
the part of the user. No evidence exists, however, to indicate that mari-
huana was responsible for generating or creating excessive aggressive-
ness or impulsivity in individuals having no prior history of impulse
or personality disorder. The most that can be said is that in these rare
instances, marihuana may have aggravated a preexisting condition. ^

In sum, the weight of the evidence is that marihuana does not cause
violent or aggressive behavior; if anything, marihuana generally
serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior. Marihuana -induced
relaxation of inhibitions is not ordinarily accompanied by an exaggera-
tion of aggressive tendencies.

No evidence exists that marihuana use will cause or lead to the
commission of violent or aggressive behavior by the large majority
of psychologically and socially mature Individuals in the general
population.

Marihuana and Non-Violent Crime

A second hypothesis reflecting the statements of significant num-
bers of government officials is that marihuana plays a major role in
the commission of other, essentially non-violent, forms of criminal
and delinquent behavior.

In general, those espousing this more general cause-effect relation-
ship assume that the drug frequently produces, in addition to the
lowering of inhibitions, impairment of judgment, distortion of reality
and at least temporary reduction of a sense of personal and social
responsibility. Indeed, the earlier stereotype of the marihuana user
was that of an immoral, physically debilitated, psychologically un-
stable and criminally marginal man whose state of severely and ir-
reversibly underdeveloped psychosocial and moral maturity was said
to derive directly from his continued use of marihuana.

As indicated earlier, neither the inherent complexities of the issue
nor the previously inconclusive empirical evidence has deterred the
formulation and expression of strong opinions about the relationship
of marihuana use to crime and delinquency. Opinion in this area,
quite apart from the empirical evidence, has long assumed critical
importance in the development of social policy.

The Commission has addressed the issue in three different ways.
One was to assess the state of current public and professional opinion
relative to the general proposition that marihuana causes or leads to
the commission of criminal or delinquent acts. A second approach
was to review the professional literature addressed to the issue, and
a third was to initiate empirical investigations of our own.

The opinion surveys found that substantial numbers of persons
raised serious questions about the existence of a causal relationship
between marihuana use and criminal or delinquent behavior. Confusion
and uncertainty about the existence of such a relationship have been
expressed by both youth and adults, including practicing professionals
in the criminal justice system.

Recent data suggest that some of this confusion may be the result
of a fairly widespread misconception about the addiction potential of
marihuana. To the extent that persons believe marihuana users are
physically dependent on the drug, they may assume that, like the
heroin user, the marihuana user commits his offenses in order to
support what is perceived as a drug habit ; and that, like the heroin
model, offenses are committed more often in the desperate attempt to
obtain the drug rather than under its influence following use. There
is no evidence that this is the case, even for those who use the drug
heavily.

In the Commission-sponsored National Survey, the respondents were
asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that “many
crimes are committed by persons who are under the influence of

marihuana.” Fifty-six percent of the adult population and 41% of
the youth indicated agreement. As in the Survey generally, there was
a significant difference of opinion according to age in the adult popula-
tion. While 69% of the over-50 age group agreed with this statement,
only about one-third of the 18-to-25 age group and the 14-to-l7-year-
olds agreed. One of every four youth respondents and 18% of the
adults said they were “not sure” of the existence of such a relationship
between marihuana use and crime.

Much greater consensus exists, even between generations, regarding
the association of alcohol and crime. Wliile 56% of all adults expressed
their belief that many crimes are committed by persons under the
influence of marihuana, 69% of these same adults believed that alcohol
was related in the same way. Only 7 % felt unsure about the alcohol-
crime relationship, in contrast to 18% who expressed uncertainty
about the relationship between crime and marihuana.

The Commission also surveyed opinion within the criminal justice
community. A sample of 781 judges, probation officers and court
clinicians replied to a questionnaire which asked respondents to indi-
cate whether or not their professeional experience led them to believe
that “use of marihuana causes or leads to antisocial behavior in the
sense that it leads one to commit other criminal or delinquent acts.”
Of all respondents, 27% believed this to be the case. Within each
professional group, 34% of the judges, 18% of the probation officers
and 2% of the clinicians indicated their agreement.

On the assumption that some proportion, however small, of mari-
huana users might ultimately be arrested for non-drug offenses, these
officials were also asked to assess the relative truth of the statement
that “most non-drug offenses committed by persons who are known
users of marihuana or are found to have marihuana on their person
or in their possession occur when the offender is under the influence
of marihuana.” Seventy-one percent of the responding judges, 75%
of the probation officers and 85% of the court clinicians either thought
the statement false or were unsure of its accuracy.

Respondents likewise rejected, however, the proposition that these
crimes perpetrated by marihuana users occur when the offender is
attempting to obtain the drug rather than while under its influence ;
65.6% of the judges, 64.6% of the probation officers and 78.3% of the
court clinicians either denied or were unsure of the truth of this
proposition.

In short, marihuana is not generally viewed by participants in the
criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the
commission of delinquent or criminal acts.

This increasing professional skepticism is buttressed by the weight
of research findings. A comprehensive review of the literature revealed
that in the various offender populations studied for this purpose, only
a small percentage were marihuana users. In only a handful of cases

did researchers report that criminal conduct followed the use of
marihuana. Generally, the rate of self-reported, non- drug crime did
not significantly differ between users and non-users.

Both of the Commission-sponsored studies (the New York and
Philadelphia studies referred to earlier) corroborated this research
consensus. In the Philadelphia study, for example, less than 10% of
the sample were known to the police, and there were no significant
differences among marihuana users and non-users in the sample who
reported the commission of major criminal acts when statistical con-
trols were applied. Further, most of the first offenses committed by
users occurred prior to their use of marihuana, and only in rare in-
stances did the offenses immediately follow (within 24 hours) upon
the use of marihuana (five cases out of 741 first offenses and 19 cases
out of 516 most recent offenses) .

Likewise, the New York study revealed that about one-fifth of the
marihuana law violators arrested between 1965 and 1969 were found
to have previous arrest records. Of those with previous arrests, the
great majority of offenses (86%) involved traffic violations and minor
violations of the vagrancy statutes. In but 10% of the cases the previous
arrests were for assault, robbery, burglary or larceny.

In essence, neither informed current professional opinion nor em-
pirical research, ranging from the 1930’s to the present, has produced
systematic evidence to support the thesis that marihuana use, by itself,
either invariably or generally leads to or causes crime, including acts
of violence, juvenile delinquency or aggressive behavior. Instead the
evidence suggests that sociolegal and cultural variables account for
the apparent statistical correlation between marihuana use and crime
or delinquency.

A Sociocultural Explanation

The persistent belief that some relationship exists between mari-
huana use and crime is not without statistical support. Undoubtedly,
the marihuana user of the 1920’s and 1930’s was overrepresented in
the nation’s jails and penitentiaries and in the general crime and
delinquency statistics. Especially during the late 1920’s and early
1930’s when the nation was preoccupied with lawlessness, the trans-
lation of this statistical correlation into a causal hypothesis is not
surprising.

The increasing incidence of use in the mid-sixties by white, affluent,
middle class, high school youth, college students and adults has occa-
sioned a reevaluation of the marihuana user and a reexamination of
the crime issue. The overwhelming majority of the new marihuana
offenders have had no previous arrests, and come from the normally
low risk, middle and upper socioeconomic population groups.

Recent public opinion surveys suggest that considerable social dis-

approval is attached to the “hippie” life style, unconventional mode
of dress and apparent disregard for the law displayed by many of
these individuals. Nonetheless, fewer persons are now willing to clas-
sify as criminal those marihuana users whose only contact with the
law has been as a result of their marihuana use. Perceptions have under-
gone a change as a result of the increased usage of marihuana among
youth of the dominant social class. Nonetheless, a statistical association
remains.

First, the majority of both marihuana users and offenders other
than actual marihuana law violators fall into the 14-to-25-year age
group. Second, the majority of those arrested for marihuana law
violations as well as other delinquent or criminal acts were, and to
a much lesser degree, still are, drawn from the same “high risk” pop-
ulations, such as minority groups, socially and economically disadvan-
taged, young, male, inner-city residents.

Third, various offender populations subjected to study often in-
cluded a number of marihuana users, although it was not the mari-
huana violations per se but other, more serious criminal conduct that
originally brought most of them to the attention of the authorities.
Finally, during the past five years, marihuana law violators have
increasingly swelled the crime and delinquency statistics; in most
cases, their only contact with the law has been for these marihuana-
specific offenses.

The Philadelphia study corroborated this continuing statistical
association. The simple relationship between using marihuana and
committing offenses was positive and statistically significant, and
there was also a high correlation between frequency of smoking mari-
huana and committing offenses. These direct associations were reduced
to insignificance, however, upon further analysis of the data, and
other explanations for the coincidence of marihuana use and crime
became evident. These included : race, education, age, the use of other
drugs, and having drug-using friends.

We conclude that some users commit crimes more frequently than
non-users not because they use marihuana but because they happen to
be the kinds of people who would be expected to have a higher crime
rate, wholly apart from the use of marihuana. In most cases, the dif-
ferences in crime rate between users and non-users are dependent not
on marihuana use per se but on these other factors.

In summary, although the available evidence suggests that mari-
huana use may be statistically correlated with the incidence of crime
and delinquency, when examined in isolation from the other variables,
no valid evidence was found to support the thesis that marihuana,
by itself, either inevitably, generally or even frequently causes or
precipitates the commission of crime, including acts of violence, or
juvenile delinquency.

Within this framework, neither the marihuana user nor the drug
itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety. For, as two
researchers have so cogently stated for the Commission, “Whatever
an individual is, in all of his cultural, social and psychological com-
plexity, is not going to vanish in a puff of marihuana smoke.”

MARIHUANA AND DRIVING

Within the context of public safety another issue which merits
attention is the extent to which drivers under the influence of mari-
huana constitute a hazard on the nation’s streets and highways. Al-
though in recent years increasing attention has been given to this issue,
at present little empirical evidence exists to inform discussion.

To assess the actual and potential impact of marihuana on traffic
safety, a number of basic research questions must be answered.

• the extent to which marihuana users actually drive while under
the influence of the drug

• the extent to which marihuana users driving while “high” com-
mit traffic violations and are involved in traffic accidents

• the amounts of marihuana consumed immediately prior to the
commission of traffic violations or the involvement in traffic acci-
dents and the drug’s role in these events

• the nature and extent to which marihuana actually impairs psy-
chomotor skills, j udgment and driving performance

To date, the generalizations made concerning the effects of mari-
huana on driving behavior have generally been based on statistical
studies of traffic violations and accidents and inferences drawn from
more general studies of the physiological and psychological conse-
quences of marihuana use, such as changes in pulse rate, reaction time,
neuromuscular coordination, time estimation and spatial perceptions.

Such studies pose serious limitations in the nature, reliability and
validity of the data. The basic problems derive from difficulties in
identifying and attributing cause. A major obstacle in such retro-
spective analysis is the inability to separate the effects of marihuana
from those possibly engendered by the use of other drugs, such as
alcohol, tranquilizers and amphetamines. Finally, conclusive analysis
is impossible until a reliable technique is developed for measuring
the level of marihuana present in the body of the driver at the time
of his violation or accident.

Prospective experimental studies of actual reactions to road condi-
tions and traffic emergency situations would undoubtedly provide the
most reliable and valid data, but such studies would themselves en-
danger the public and have not been undertaken. Researchers have
relied, therefore, on controlled laboratory simulator studies and direct
interviews with those who have admitted to driving while under the
influence of marihuana.

With respect to the simulator studies, the available evidence sug-
gests that while, in some cases, marihuana has produced interference
with certain motor or mental abilities which affect driving behavior,
these effects were generally believed to be readily overcome by the
exercise of extreme caution by the driver and a significant reduction in
speed.

The few driving simulator tests completed to date have generally
revealed no significant correlations between marihuana use and driv-
ing disabilities. Comparison of the simulator scores of users and non-
users, however, did reveal small but non-significant differences in the
number of speedometer errors made.

These simulator studies also examined the comparative effects of
alcohol and marihuana on driving scores. The findings of one study,
though controversial, suggested that intoxication resulting from low
doses of marihuana was less detrimental to driving performance than
was the presence of alcohol at the legally prohibited blood level of
.10%.

The methodological limitations of the study raise serious questions
about the reliability and validity of the findings. As one critic has
noted, “It does not follow automatically that lack of effect of a drug
on the simulated task will correlate with lack of effect on the actual
task/’ Further, the use of dissimilar doses of alcohol and marihuana
has led another critic to assert that “finding that a heavy dose of alco-
hol caused more impairment than a mild dose of marihuana is neither
surprising nor helpful in assessing the relative effects of the two drugs
in the relative doses in which they are normally used.”

Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly
impairs driving ability or performance. The Commission believes,
nonetheless, that driving while under the influence of any psycho-
active drug is a serious risk to public safety ; the acute effects of mari-
huana intoxication, spatial and time distortion and slowed reflexes
may impair driving performance. That the risk of injury may be
greater for alcohol than for marihuana matters little.

Obviously, much more research needs to be undertaken in this area.
Hopefully, recent studies sponsored by the National Institute of Men-
tal Health and other agencies will soon provide the concrete informa-
tion that is needed.

Marihuana, Public Health and Welfare

As the feared threat to public safety through violent crime has di-
minished in recent years, policy-makers and the public have begun
increasingly to view marihuana and other illicit drug use as a public
health concern. The National Survey indicates that American adults
regard drug abuse as the third most pressing problem of the day,

closely following the economy and Vietnam. How-ever, public atti-
tudes reflect considerable confusion about the facts concerning mari-
huana and drugs in general.

This confusion has resulted from too little understanding of the
motives for drug use as well as inadequate knowledge of the classifica-
tion of drugs according to their main effects. Legal penalties have
frequently mirrored this confusion, and the resulting inconsistencies
cause many young people to lose confidence in adult authority. Even
in the medical profession, much uncertainty is evident, and for most
of the general public there is no clear authority to whom they can
turn for guidance.

A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH

The Commission broadly defines public health concerns as all health
problems which affect people en masse and are thereby difficult to treat
on a traditional physician-to-patient basis. This category would in-
clude social and economic dependence and incapacity. A health prob-
lem which spreads to other susceptible members of the society cannot
be controlled by the individual physician. This view coincides with
the concept of preventive medicine, recognizing that all public health
problems must be dealt with on both an individual and societal level.

To illustrate, the increasing incidence of deaths due to lung cancer
subsequent to chronic, heavy tobacco usage is a major public health
concern. In this instance, prevention of smoking and ascertaining the
cause of the malignancies, rather than the individual treatment of each
case by a physician, define the public health dimension. A major con-
cern exists because the population at risk is large and growing, and
the risk of harm is great.

In addition to the risk of large numbers of the populace being
affected, the issue of contagion must also be examined. Unlike infec-
tious diseases such as influenza and smallpox, where the person affected
“catches” the ailment unintentionally, those individuals who use
marihuana choose to come into contact with it. The contagion model is
relevant only insofar as social pressure from proselytizing friends and
social contacts play a role in spreading the use of the drug. This dimen-
sion exists with marihuana, as well as alcohol and tobacco.

After assessing the potential harm to the individual and society, the
size of the population at risk and the contagion aspect, society must
determine the nature of the control mechanism used to deal with the
problem, and how much of its health resources, manpower and facili-
ties will be allocated to meet the perceived threat to the public health.
Therefore, an analysis of the relative risk of marihuana use must be
undertaken. We must examine not only the effects of the drug on the
individual but also determine which groups are at risk and why.

Practically all substances consumed by man are potentially danger-
ous to the physical or mental health of the individual if used irrespon-
sibly or by particularly sensitive persons. Certain substances are suf-
ficiently complex in their effects that societal control is necessary to
reduce risk, for example, fluorides added to the water supply, pre-
scription drugs, and food additives. The degree of concern and control
varies, depending on relative public health dangers.

The Population At Risk

Before the dangers can be assessed, the population at risk must be
defined. Viewing the public health picture on a large scale, the United
States in 1972 may still be considered fortunate with regard to mari-
huana usage. While it is the third most popular recreational drug,
behind alcohol and tobacco, it has not been institutionalized and
commercialized.

Most of the Americans who have used marihuana have been merely
experimenting with it. As noted in Chapter I, there are 24 million
Americans who have tried marihuana at one time or another, with
8.3 million still using it. Of those who have quit, most say they have
simply lost interest in it. The same Survey shows that experience with
marihuana peaks in the 18-to-25-year-old group and falls off sharply
thereafter. A fact of some significance is that at least 71% of all adults
(18-years and older) and 80% of youth (12-to-17-years) have never
used marihuana at all.*

The Survey also indicates that the majority of those youth and
adults who continue to use marihuana do so intermittently, that is,
between one and 10 times a month. These individuals are classified as
intermittent marihuana smokers who use the drug for its socializing
effects. They are, for the most part, ordinary Americans who are either
in school or are employed.

About 2% of those who have ever used marihuana, or 500,000 people,
now use the drug heavily. They use the drug several times a day. These
individuals use marihuana for its personal drug effects in addition to
its socializing effects. Generally, their life styles, values, attitudes, be-
haviors and activities are unconventional. Marihuana plays an im-

*In the self-administered instrument, several separate questions were utilized
to elicit the respondent’s experience with marihuana. This technique permitted an
analysis of consistency of responses, and also minimized the possibility of non-
response. Nevertheless, 14% of the adults and 6% of the youth did not respond
to enough of these questions to ascertain whether they had ever tried marihuana

or not.

Percentage who —

Adult

Youth

Ever used

Never used

No response-

__ 14

portant role in their lives. Because the risk of psychological, and per-
haps physical, harm from marihuana increases with the frequency,
quantity and duration of its use, these heavy marihuana users consti-
tute the greatest at-risk population in the United States today.

The heavy marihuana user presents the greatest potential concern to
the public health. It is the Commission’s opinion that these heavy
marihuana users constitute a source of contagion within American
society. They actively proselytize others into a drug-oriented way of
life. The effectiveness of peer group pressure has been described earlier
in Chapter II.

W e anticipate that this at-risk population would increase in number
should a policy of institutionalized availability be adopted toward
marihuana. Although marihuana is readily available illicitly in the
United States today, a policy permitting its legal distribution could
be expected to bring about an increase in users, with some percentage
of them becoming heavy users. It is the availability of the drug,
coupled with a governmental policy of approval or neutrality, that
could escalate this group into a public health and welfare concern.
While this is speculative, it is a concern which cannot be dismissed.
The experience with the rise in the use of tobacco and alcohol makes
clear the probable consequences of commercial exploitation.

Another concern of the Commission is the experience of other
countries which have large heavy user populations. While the pattern
of behavior in one country is not automatically similar to a pattern of
behavior in another country, the existence of heavy user populations
constitutes a serious public health concern which must be avoided in
this country. The availability of the drug alone does not seem to
determine increased usage ; supply and governmental inaction appear
to tip the balance toward increased use. The proportion of our popula-
tion susceptible to this pattern of use is conjectural but good preventive
public health requires limiting the number to an irreducible minimum.

Confusion and Fact

One of the primary sources of confusion surrounding the use of
marihuana and other psychoactive drugs is the ambiguity of the term
“drug abuse.” In many quarters the excessive use of any drug is con-
sidered drug abuse, regardless of the effect of the drug on the individual
or his behavior. In order to clarify this issue the Commission defines
psychoactive drug abuse as follows :

Drug abuse is the use of 'psycho active drugs in a way likely to induce

mental dysfunction and disordered behavior.

It should be emphasized that demonstrable pathology of organ
systems, including the brain, is not a necessary characteristic of
psychoactive drug abuse. There are numerous non-psychoactive drugs
which can induce extensive organ pathology but do not modify be-

havior; such drugs leave their imprint primarily on the individual,
not on society. The Commission believes that many of the perplexing
issues relating to psychoactive drugs, including marihuana, can be
clarified if drug abuse refers ordy to the impact of drug-induced
behavior on society.

Three types of such drug-induced behavior are considered unac-
ceptable in most organized societies: (1) aggressiveness leading to
violence; (2) loss of psychomotor control; (3) mental or physical
disorder leading to social and economic incapacity or dependency.

This is not to say that society is unconcerned about the harmful
effects of psychoactive drugs on the individual, or that such effects
do not merit the attention of public health officials. Cigarette smoking,
although affecting primarily the individual, is surely a matter of public
health concern. We believe, however, that the term drug abuse, with
its attendant societal disapprobation, should be reserved for drug-
taking which has a more direct effect on society through disordered
behavior.

Beyond the confusion surrounding the term drug abuse, a rational
evaluation of the public health impact of marihuana use is also
inhibited by extensive misinformation about the drug. Recently, a
great deal of research has increased significantly our knowledge about
marihuana. Further research data are necessary before a conclusive
statement about marihuana and public health can be made. However,
enough is known today to discuss some of the public perceptions in
detail. And sufficient data are presently available to allow for rational
decision-making.

ASSESSMENT OF PERCEIVED RISKS

- The Commission believes that marihuana is perceived by the Amer-
ican public to present the following risks to the public health :

• lethality

• potential for genetic damage or teratogenicity

• immediate adverse physical or mental effects

• long-term physical or mental effects including psychosis and
“amotivation” syndrome

• “addiction” potential

• progression to other stronger drugs, especially heroin

Lethality

The Commissions National Survey revealed that 48% of adults
believe that some people have died from marihuana use. A careful
search of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials
has not revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven
to have resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments

with the drug in monkeys demonstrated that the dose required for
overdose death was enormous and for all practical purposes unachiev-
able by humans smoking marihuana. This is in marked contrast to
other substances in common use, most notably alcohol and barbiturate
sleeping pills.

Of comparative note, 89% of all adults in the same Survey believe
that some people have died from using alcohol. This indicates that
public opinion regarding alcohol and its potential lethality is more
accurate than it is for marihuana. At the same time, factual knowledge
regarding the inherent danger in using a substance, for example alco-
hol, seemingly does not deter many persons from using it irresponsibly.

Potential For Genetic Damage

The thalidomide tragedies of the 1950’s have taught us to ponder
carefully the possibility of genetic damage subsequent to any drug
use. The much publicized controversy regarding LSD and subsequent
genetic damage has led investigators to study marihuana and its pos-
sible genetic effects. Although a number of studies have been per-
formed, at present no reliable evidence exists indicating that mari-
huana causes genetic defects in man.

Early findings from studies of chronic (up to 41 years), heavy
(several ounces per day) cannabis users in Greece and Jamaica also
failed to find such evidence. In all its studies, the Commission found
no evidence of chromosome damage or teratogenic or mutagenic effects
due to cannabis at doses commonlvTisecT by man. However, since fetal
damage, cannot be ruled out, the use of marihuana like that of many
other drugs, is not advisable during pregnancy.

Immediate Effects

The intoxicant effects of marihuana on the mental function of the
user does have potential health significance both for the individual
and others with whom he may come in contact. Because marihuana is
a psychoactive drug, it is important to examine the acute toxic effects
which may occur in certain predisposed individuals and which increase
with the potency of the preparation.

The Commission has reviewed numerous clinical studies describing
acute panic reactions and transient psychotic-like episodes which occur
as acute effects of the drug intoxication. In addition, a predisposed
individual might experience aggravation of a latent psychotic state
or other underlying instability. Although severe abnormal psycho-
logical states are rare when compared to the total number of marihuana
users, lesser problems are not rare, and they may endanger both the
individual and those around him at the time of their occurrence. The
individual contemplating use is not capable of predicting whether

he is predisposed by his particular circumstances to an undesirable
mental reaction. The undesirable consequences occurring while an
individual is involved in complex tasks such as driving or operating
machinery or tasks requiring fine psychomotor precision and judgment
are all too imaginable.

From a public health point of view, the immediate effects of mari-
huana intoxication on the individual’s organs or bodily functions are
of little significance. By and large these effects, which have been
carefully outlined in Chapter II of the Report, are transient and have
little or no permanent effect upon the individual.

Effects Of Long-Term, Heavy Use

To determine the long-term chronic effects of heavy marihuana use,
the Commission has carefully reviewed the world literature and con-
temporary studies of heavy, chronic (up to 41 years) cannabis users
in the world. In addition, lower socioeconomic populations in Afghan-
istan, Greece, and Jamaica have been examined.

Effects On The Body

These recent studies in Greece and Jamaica report minimal physical
abnormalities in the cannabis users as compared with their non-using
peers.

Minimal abnormalities in pulmonary function have been observed
in some cases of heavy and very heavy smokers of potent marihuana
preparations (ganja or hashish). However, one study concluded the
cause was smoking in general, no matter what the substance. The other
study could not express any conclusion because of the absence of a
control population. Such decrements in normal pulmonary capacity
may represent early warning signals in the development of chronic
lung disease. They must be considered in any program of early pre-
vention of disease and future disability.

No objective evidence of specific pathology of brain tissue has been
documented. This fact contrasts sharply with the well-established
brain damage of chronic alcoholism.

Effects On The Mind

No outstanding abnormalities in psychological tests, psychiatric
interviews or coping patterns have been conclusively documented in
studies of cannabis users in other countries of the world. Further re-
search in this important area is necessary before definite conclusions
can be drawn relating or linking marihuana to mental dysfunction
because available psychological tests do not measure certain higher
mental functions very accurately.

Cannabis use has long been known to precipitate short-term
phychotic-like episodes in predisposed individuals or those who take
excessive doses. Some observers report that the prevalence of short-
term psychoses as well as the psychotic episodes of longer duration
in heavy cannabis users are compatible with the prevalence rate of
psychosis in the general population and, therefore, may not be attrib-
utable to cannabis use. In fact, some believe that in populations under
stress where marihuana is widely used, occurrence of the acute
psychotic-like episodes occur less often than one would expect in such
a population. Other researchers have disagreed with these conclusions,
and the matter is still controversial.

Effects On Motivation

The Commission is deeply concerned about another group of be-
havioral effects that have been described in other nations as being
associated with the heavy, long-term use of cannabis. This behavioral
condition has been termed the “amotivational syndrome.” An extreme
form has been reported in populations of lower socioeconomic males in
several developing nations. These reports describe lethargy, insta-
bility, social deterioration, a loss of interest in virtually all activities
other than drug use. This state of social and economic disability also
results in precipitation and aggravation of psychiatric disorders (overt
psychotic behavior) and possible somatic complications among very
heavy, very long-term users of high potency cannabis products. How-
ever, in the populations so far observed in Jamaica, Greece, and Af-
ghanistan, physical and psychosocial deterioration was not reported.
The life styles of these populations appeared to be conditioned by
cultural and socioeconomic factors. Some researchers believe cannabis
may serve to keep these individuals stratified at this lower socioeco-
nomic level.

The occurrence of a similar, though less intense, syndrome has been
identified recently with heavy marihuana use among young persons
in the Western world, including the United States. Some clinicians
have described the existence of a complex of subtle social, psycholog-
ical and behavioral changes related to a loss of volitional goal direction
in certain individuals, including some long-term heavy users of mari-
huana. Such persons appear to orient only to the present. They appear
alienated from generally accepted social and occupational activities,
and they tend to show a reduced concern for personal hygiene and
nutrition.

Some clinicians believe that this picture is directly caused by the
action of marihuana. However, other behavioral scientists believe that
among impressionable adolescents, marihuana-induced suggestibility
may facilitate the rapid adoption of new values and behavior patterns,

particularly when the drug is taken in a socially alienated subculture
that advocates and strongly reinforces such changes.

'Whichever interpretation one accepts, the fact is apparent that the
chronic, heavy use of marihuana may jeopardize social and economic
adjustments of the adolescent. We believe this is one concern which
merits further research and evaluation. On the basis of past studies, the
chronic, heavy use of marihuana seems to constitute a high-risk be-
havior, particularly among predisposed adolescents. This considera-
tion is especially critical when we consider the adolescent who is in the
throes of a normally turbulent emotional process. The Commission
has reviewed numerous reported studies and heard the testimony of
several clinicians dealing with heavy users of marihuana who exhibit
this particular behavior pattern. Although the United States does not,
at the present time, have a large number of such persons within its
population, the incidence is too frequent to ignore. Expanded epi-
demiologic studies are imperative to obtain a better understanding
of this complex behavior.

Addiction Potential

Unfortunately, fact and fancy have become irrationally mixed re-
garding marihuana’s physiological and psychological properties.
Marihuana clearly is not in the same chemical category as heroin in-
sofar as its physiologic and psychological effects are concerned. In a
word, cannabis does not lead to physical dependence. No torturous
withdrawal syndrome follows the sudden cessation of chronic, heavy
use of marihuana. Although evidence indicates that heavy, long-term
cannabis users may develop psychological dependence, even then the
level of psychological dependence is no different from the syndrome
of anxiety and restlessness seen when an American stops smoking
tobacco cigarettes.

Progression To Other Drugs

As noted in Chapter II, to say marihuana leads to any other drug
avoids the real issue and reduces a complex set of variables to an over-
simplified premise of cause and effect. If any one statement can char-
acterize why persons in the United States escalate their drug use
patterns and become polydrug users, it is peer pressure. Indeed, if
any drug is associated with the use of other drugs, including mari-
huana, it is tobacco, followed closely by alcohol. Study after study
which the Commission reviewed invariably reported an association
between the use of tobacco, and, to a lesser extent, of alcohol with
the use of marihuana and other drugs.

The fact should be emphasized that the overwhelming majority of
marihuana users do not progress to other drugs. They either remain

456-964 0-72-7

with marihuana or foresake its use in favor of alcohol. In addition,
the largest number of marihuana users in the United States today are
experimenters or intermittent users, and 2% of those who have ever
used it are presently heavy users. Only moderate and heavy use of
marihuana is significantly associated with persistent use of other
drugs.

Some persons in our society are interested in experimenting with
a series of drugs, and there is no uniformity regarding which drug
these multidrug users take first. In some cases, the drug used is a mat-
ter of preference; in others, a matter of availability; and in further
instances, a matter of group choice.

Citizens concerned with health issues must consider the possibility
of marihuana use leading to use of heroin, other opiates, cocaine or
hallucinogens. This so-called stepping-stone theory first received wide-
spread acceptance in 1951 as a result of testimony at Congressional
hearings. At that time, studies of various addict populations re-
peatedly described most heroin users as marihuana users also. The
implication of these descriptions was that a causal relationship existed
between marihuana and subsequent heroin use. When the voluminous
testimony given at these hearings is seriously examined, no verifica-
tion is found of a causal relationship between marihuana use and
subsequent heroin use.

Again, we must avoid polarity on this issue. To assume that mari-
huana use is unrelated to the use of other drugs would be inaccurate.
As mentioned earlier, the heavy or very heavy marihuana users are
frequently users of other drugs. The stepping-stone theory holds that
the adolescent begins the use of illicit drugs with marihuana, and later
proceeds to heroin in the search for greater thrills. The opposing
viewpoint holds that the lange majority of marihuana users never
become heroin addicts and denies the validity of a causal relationship.

In the National Survey, among the adult respondents, 70% thought
that marihuana makes people want to try stronger drugs such as
heroin; 56% of the youth in the 12-to-l7-year-old category agreed
with the same statement. These perceptions contrast with another
finding in the same Survey which revealed that 4% of current mari-
huana users have tried heroin. On the other hand, very few respondents
perceived alcohol and tobacco to be precipitants of other drug use.

Studies of the escalation process demonstrate that the rates of pro-
gression vary from one group to another and from one segment of the
population to another. There is no set proportion of marihuana users
who “escalate” to the use of other drugs. The other drugs which some
marihuana smokers use vary according to the social characteristics of
the population in question. Within some groups, heroin may be the
choice ; in other groups, it may be LSD.

Marihuana use per se does not dictate whether other drugs will be

used; nor does it determine the rate of progression, if and when it
occurs, or which drugs might be used. As discussed in Chapter II,
the users social group seems to have the strongest influence on whether
other drugs will be used ; and if so, which drugs will be used.

PREVENTIVE PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS

The hallmark of a good health care delivery system is preventing as
much illness as possible. This objective is achieved by means of im-
munizations, regular routine check-ups, and educational programs.

Education programs regarding marihuana have been notably inef-
fective, partly due to an exaggeration of the effects of using the drug
and partly because the effects of the opiates and marihuana have been
compared inaccurately. As a result, many persons have developed a
conscious or unconscious denial of nearly all dangers associated with
marihuana use. Some educators believe that drug programs merely
sharpen the curiosity of children and tempt them to use drugs which
they otherwise would not use. Others believe that the responsibility
should not be lodged with the schools but rather with the home or
the community.

Because of the uncertainty about the efficacy of these programs,
education programs dealing with drug usage simply do not exist in
the school systems of a number of major cities; in others, token pro-
grams are offered in response to the demand that something be done.
Health educators have the responsibility to help this vulnerable group
of Americans become aware of all options so that they are able to make
enlightened choices.

The educational role of physicians and other clinical health per-
sonnel should not be underestimated. The National Survey shows that
the public believes young people should receive information concern-
ing marihuana first from schools and second from family physicians.
The health professional has a unique position as both teacher and con-
fidant to an individual struggling with a “drug abuse” problem. Hon-
est, sincere, and confidential guidance from a physician may prevent
later difficulties to both the individual and the society. The Commis-
sion believes that action must be taken to inform and support the
physician in his role as confidant and counsellor to those seeking
assistance.

Considering the current patterns of marihuana use in the United
States, the need for treatment and/or rehabilitation does not appear
necessary for the vast majority of persons who are experimenting with
the drug or using it intermittentty. Rather, these persons need to be
realistically educated regarding the potential hazards they face. To
this end, a comparison of the personal and public health risks of mari-
huana and those of heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and other drugs
would be useful.

A concern for public health also requires thoughtful consideration
of the consequences of any change in public policy. We have objec-
tively appraised the present scope of public health concern, concluding
that the most serious risk lies with the population of heavy users,
which is, at this time, quite small in this country.

Now, we must soberly consider the likely effect of adoption of a
social policy of neutrality or approval toward marihuana use. Any
legal policy which institutionalizes availability of the drug carries
with it a likely increase in the at-risk population. This factor is not
necessarily conclusive in itself, but it does weigh heavily for the policy-
maker. Even though the proportion of heavy users in the total using
population might not increase if such a social or legal policy were
adopted, the absolute number of heavy users would probably increase. /
Thus, we would have an increase in the at-risk segment of the popu-
lace. A greater stress would thereby be placed on the general health
care delivery system in all the areas of health concern described earlier.

Regardless of emerging social policy, greater emphasis must be
placed on educating our youth regarding the prospective dangers
inherent in expanded marihuana use. This anticipatory guidance can
serve to defuse or at least forestall a potentially serious social
phenomenon.

Summary

From what is now known about the effects of marihuana, its use
- at the present level does not constitute a major threat to public health.
However, this statement should not lead to complacency. Marihuana
is not an innocuous drug. The clinical findings of impaired psycho-
logical function^carefullv documented bv medical specialists, legiti-
mately"arouse concern. These studies identify marihuana-related prob-
lems which must be taken into account in the development of public
policy. Unfortunately, these marihuana-related problems, which occur
only in heavy, long-term users, have been/ n vyrg;PTI pr ah voA n.r> d aver-
>^ramatized.

r Two percent of those Americans who ha vp. ever usorl mn.rihrai.nfl. are
1 nowheavy users and constitute the highest risk group. Strong evidence
\ indicates that certain emotional changes have taken place among pre-
jdisposed individuals as a result of prolonged, heavy marihuana use.
The clinical reports in the literature describing transient psychoses,
other psychiatric difficulties, and impairment of cognitive function
subsequent to use of marihuana and of other drugs do not prove
causality but cannot be ignored.

The causes of these emotional difficulties are much too complex to
justify general conclusions by the public or the press. The mass media
have frequently promoted such clinical reports to appear as far-

reaching events affecting the entire population. The clinician sees
only the troubled population of any group. In evaluating a public
health concern, the essential element is the proportion of affected per-
sons in the general group. The people responsible for evaluating public
health problems must concern themselves with the proportion of people
out of the total population who are affected by any specific condition.
The highest risk groups should be identified as the source of primary
concern. A recognition that a majority of marihuana users are not now
a matter of public health concern must be made so that public healt h
officials may concentrate their attention where it will have maximum
impact.

The concept of relative risk is crucial to an evaluation of the im-,
pact of marihuana on public health. We believe that experimental or
intermittent use of this drug carries minimal risk to the public health,
and should not be given overzealous attention in terms of a public^
health response. We are concerned that social influences might cause
those who would not otherwise use the drug to be exposed to this
jninimal -ri§^_and the potential p.srfl1atjon_ of drug-using patterns. y/
For this group, we must deglorify, demythologize, and deemphasize
the use of marihuana and other drugs..'"""' " "

The Commission reemphasizes its concern about the small minority
of heavy, long-term marihuana users who are exposed to a much
greater relative risk of impaired general functioning in contempo-
rary America. Public health officials should concentrate their efforts
on this group. Fortunately, the group has to date not grown sufficently
in size to warrant its being considered a major public health concern.

We ret iterate, too, the public health implications of an increase in
the at-risk population. We suspect that such an increase is most
likely if a sudden shift in social policy significantly increased avail-
ability of the drug. One of the factors we consider in Chapter V
when evaluating the various social policy options and legal imple-
mentations is the effect of each policy on incidence and patterns of
use. Regardless of how heavy this particular variable will weigh
in that process, we must state that a significant increase in the at-risk
population could convert what is now a minor public health concern
in this country to one of major proportions.

Marihuana And The Dominant Social Order

For more than 30 years it has been widely assumed that the mari-
huana user constitutes a threat to the well-being of the community
and the nation. Originally, the users were considered to be “outsiders”
or marginal citizens. Included were such people as hustlers, prosti-
tutes, itinerant workers, merchant seamen, miners and ranchhands,

water-front day laborers and drifters, many of whom were drawn
from the lower socioeconomic segments of the population.

Concerns about marihuana use expressed in the 1930’s related pri-
marily to a perceived inconsistency between the life styles and values
of these individuals and the social and moral order. Their potential
influence on the young was especially worrisome. When marihuana
was first prohibited, a recurrent fear was that use might spread among
the youth. And in the late 1930’s and 1940’s, the attraction of young
people to jazz music was thought to be in part related to marihuana
use by this “outsider’ population.

Throughout this early period, American society, in reaction to its
fear of the unfamiliar, translated rumor about the criminality and
immorality of the marihuana user into “unquestioned fact” which,
in turn, was translated into social policy.

From the mid-thirties to the present, however, social perceptions
have undergone significant change in response to the emergence of
new and challenging social problems. As marihuana use has spread
to include the affluent, middle class, white high school and college-age
youth as well as minority group members of lower socioeconomic
circumstances in urban core areas, the concept of marginality has
become blurred.

Also, as the use of marihuana has increased, those individuals
formerly labeled as marginal and threatening have been replaced by a
more middle class, white, educated and younger population of mari-
huana smokers. A stereotyped user no longer exists, and therefore,
the question now properly focuses on who poses a threat to the
dominant order.

The Adult Marihuana User

Despite the fact that substantial numbers of adults use marihuana,
society does not appear to feel greatly threatened by this group,
probably because included in the group are a considerable number of
middle class individuals who are regularly employed and whose oc-
cupational and social status appear to be similar to those of peers and
colleagues who do not use marihuana.

In the course of its fact-finding effort, the Commission has met
with several groups of socially and economically “successful” mari-
huana users in the professions of law, medicine, banking, education
and business. In most cases, these persons, in their external appear-
ances, seemed to be mature and responsible adults whose social atti-
tudes and behavior did not mark them as radical ideologues or
essentially irresponsible individuals.

For the most part, use of marihuana by adults has been found to
be more directly related to the facilitation of social interaction (much
like the adult use of alcohol in social gatherings) than to any other

factor. Although their marihuana smoking behavior is illegal, most
adult users are not ordinarily considered by their peers to be criminal
nor is their use generally likely to result in arrest.

Because the adult user generally maintains low visibility, is pri-
marily a recreational user, is not usually involved in radical political
activity and maintains a life style largely indistinguishable from his
non-using neighbors, he is not ordinarily viewed as a threat to the
dominant social order. In short, aside from his use of marihuana,
the adult recreational user is not generally viewed as a significant
social problem.

The Young Marihuana User

The widespread use of marihuana by millions of young people of
college and high school age has been viewed by many as a direct
threat to the stability and future of the social order.

Many parents, adults in general, and government officials have
expressed concern that young people Avho use marihuana often reject
the essential values and traditions upon which the society is founded.
Some have suggested that youthful marihuana use is, in itself, an
indication of the rejection of responsibility and a sign of reckless
hedonism which may well interfere with an orderly maturation proc-
ess. Others see youthful marihuana use as part of a pattern of conduct
which produces dropping out, underachievement and dependency.

In short, the mass character of youthful marihuana use has been
frequently interpreted as a rejection of the institutionalized principles
of law and a lack of concern for individual social responsibility , which
threatens the social and political institutions. —

Implicit in this view is the assumption that a young person who
uses marihuana in spite of the law cannot be expected to assume an
individually and socially responsible adult role. The strength of this
fear is drawn largely from the vocal and visible “counterculture” to
which marihuana is often tied. Not surprisingly, the concerns posed
by an alternate youthful life style are extended to the drug itself. ~

Threats to the social order are often seen, for example, in the char-
acter of youthful leisure time activities, such as attendance at rock
concerts, occasioned by the high mobility and affluence of today?s
youth. They are also seen in the new modes of speech and dress and
in the seemingly casual manner of their day-to-day living. Equally
troublesome for many, however, is the idea of intentional intoxication
for purposes of recreation.

Such conduct and the more casual attitude toward sexual relation-
ships as well as participation in radical politics have provoked in-
creasing concern throughout the adult society. The National Survey
illustrates the extent to which the older adult perceives youthful mari-
huana use as part of a much larger pattern of behavior which bodes
ill for the future of the nation.

First, the older the adult respondent, the more likely he was to
picture the marihuana user as leading an abnormal life. Only 9%
of the over-50 generation agreed with the statement that “most people
who use marihuana lead a normal life.” Nineteen percent of the 35-
to-49 age group and 29% of the 26-to-34-y ear-olds were of the same
belief. Conversely, half of the young adults (18-to-25) considered most
marihuana users normal. This fact is not surprising since many of their
contemporaries are marihuana users.

Second, the marihuana user, as envisioned by adults, is typically
a youthful dropout from society. He doesn’t like to be with other
people, is uninterested in the world around him, is usually lazy and
has an above-average number of personal problems.

Third, the less optimistic the adult respondent was about the na-
tion’s youth, the more likely he was to oppose alteration of the
marihuana laws and to envision major social dislocations if the laws
were changed. Fifty-seven percent of the adult population in general
agreed with the statement, “if marihuana were legal, it would lead
to teenagers becoming irresponsible and wild.” Among those adults
who most disapproved of youthful behavior in general, 74% agreed
with the quoted statement. Similarly, 84% of the non-approving adults
favored stricter laws on marihuana.

As we discussed in Chapter I, marihuana’s symbolic role in a per-
ceived generational conflict has brought marihuana use into the cate-
gory of a social problem. Today’s youthful marihuana user is seen
as a greater threat to the social order than either the marginal user
of earlier times or the adult user of the present. Since the concerns
about marihuana today relate mostly to youth, the remainder of this
section will focus on these youth-related issues.

THE WORLD OF YOUTH

Youth of today are better fed, better housed, more mobile, more
affluent, more schooled and probably more bored with their lives than
jury generation which has preceded them.

Adults have difficulty understanding why such privileged young
people should wish to offend by their language and appearance and
spend so much effort trying to discredit those institutions of society
which have made possible the privileges which those youth enjoy.
Many adults perceive the present level of youthful discontent to be
of a greater intensity than has been true of past generations.

Marihuana has become both a focus and a symbol of the generation
gap and for many young people its use has become an expedient means
of protest against adult values.

Adults in positions of authority, parents, teachers, policy officials,
judges, and others often view marihuana use as the sign of youth’s

rejection of moral and social values and of the system of government
under which they live. The problem is that both youth and adults tend
to make pronouncements and are frequently unable to reason together
in logical fashion. Instead they overstate their positions in such a way
that effective resolution of their differences becomes very difficult.

In effect, each group takes the rhetoric of the other at face value.
For youth, however, marihuana use plays many roles, only one of
which is a symbolic assault on adult authority and values.

Marihuana use, for many young people, has become a part of a
ritual. It takes on the aspect of participating in a shared experience
which, for some if not all, is enjoyable in itself. For many, it becomes
an even more interesting experience because it is forbidden.

Some of the rituals concerned with the purchase, storage, prepara-
tion, and use of marihuana take on a mystique similar to the time of
Prohibition when people went through certain rituals necessary to get
a drink in a speak-easy. The three knocks and “Joe sent me” cues have
been replaced by the not-so-secret handshakes, the new vocabulary of
youth and other exclusionary devices to delineate the “in” group.

The use of marihuana is attractive to many young people for the
sense of group unity and participation which develops around the
common use of the drug. This sense tends to be intensified by a sense
of “common cause” in those circumstances where users are regarded
as social or legal outcasts.

They know, too, that many of their peers who share the marihuana
experience and also share the designation of lawbreaker are, in reality,
productive and generally affirmative individuals who are interested
neither in promoting the downfall of the nation nor in engaging in
acts which would harm the general well-being of the community.

In short, many youth have found marihuana use to be a pleasurable
and socially rewarding experience. They have found that the continu-
ance of this behavior has brought them more pleasure than discomfort,
more reward than punishment.

Youth have increasingly come to see law enforcement activity di-
rected at marihuana use as an unreasonable and unjustifiable rejection
of their generation. Most of these youth have grown up with a positive
image of the police as protectors of society. Now, many are confronted
with the possibility of police intrusion into their private lives and
the threat of a criminal record. The unfortunate result, in many
instances, has been a blanket rejection and distrust of both the agents
and institutions of government.

In part, marihuana use as a social behavior is an unintended by-
product of the formal and informal educational process. Some persons
even suggest that youthful drug usage is a “success” in terms of the
educational and socialization process. Our society values independence
of thought, experimentation, and the empirical method, often rein-

forcing this attitude by such advertising cliches as “make up your
own mind,” “be your own man,” “judge for yourself.”

Although experimentation with regard to drugs should not be con-
sidered a “success,” the Commission does believe that the educational
efforts necessary to discourage this curiosity, which may be valuable
in other matters, have not succeeded. We understand why teenagers
and young adults encouraged over the years to make up their own
minds have not been restrained by exaggerated accounts of mari-
huana’s harmful effects, or by the more recent assertions that a true
evaluation of marihuana uses requires more research. The Scottish
verdict of “not proven” does little to restrain youthful curiosity.

In the previous Chapter, we emphasized the difference between the
vast majority of experimenters and intermittent users and the small
group of moderate and heavy users who generally use drugs other
than marihuana as well. The former do not differ significantly from
non-users on many indices of social integration. Various studies indi-
cate that they maintain normal patterns of living and social inter-
action, and are employed, competent citizens.

On the other hand, there undoubtedly are a number of persons who
have used marihuana and have exercised poor judgment, performed
inadequately, or behaved irresponsibly while under the drug’s influ-
ence, thus jeopardizing themselves or others. The fact remains, how-
ever, that a certain number of these persons were immature and irre-
sponsible individuals even prior to marihuana use, who would be
expected to have poor or impaired judgment whether or not marihuana
was involved.

The marihuana user is not, for the most part, a social isolationist
or a severely disturbed individual in need of treatment or confinement.
Most users, young or old, demonstrate an average or above-average
degree of social functioning, academic achievement and job perform-
ance. Their general image of themselves and their society is not radi-
cally different from that of their non-marihuana-using peers. The
majority of both groups tends to demonstrate equal interest in cor-
porate concerns.

Based upon present evidence, it is unlikely that marihuana users
will become less socially responsible as a result of their marihuana
use or that their patterns of behavior and values will change
significantly.

WHY SOCIETY FEELS THREATENED

Society appears to be concerned about marihuana use primarily
because of its perceived relationship to other social problems. We
noted in the discussion of marihuana and public health that the focus
of social concern should be the heavy users and the possibility that
their numbers will increase. Here we consider the perceived impact
96

of marihuana use upon the institutions and proclaimed goals of the
society.

Dropping Out

Many parents have a genuine fear that marihuana use leads to
idleness and “dropping out.” During the 1960’s, marihuana use, as
well as the use of other psychoactive drugs, became equated with
unconventional youth life styles. When a number of young people
adopted unconventional life styles, many adults tended to view long
hair, unkempt appearance and drugs as symbols of counterculture.

They concluded that anyone who allowed his hair to grow or gave
little attention to his clothing or appearance was probably a drug
user with little or no motivation to achieve and no interest in con-
ventional goals.

A number of researchers and clinicians have observed the use of
marihuana or hashish in other societies, particularly among poor,
lower class males. Some have observed that many of these individuals
are generally unmotivated and ordinarily appear to show little as-
piration or motivation to improve their way of life, regardless of
whether they are judged by the standards of the more prosperous
members of their own society or by middle class standards of contem-
porary American society.

One of the problems with this type of analysis is that it fails to
perceive the social and cultural realities in which the phenomenon
takes place. In the Middle East and in Asia where hashish is used,
the societies, in all instances, are highly stratified with people in
the lower classes having virtually no social or economic mobility.
Poverty, deprivation and disease were the conditions into which these
people were born and in which they remain, regardless of wdiether
they use cannabis. In this context, a person’s resignation to his status
in life is not likely to be caused or greatly influenced by the effects
of cannabis. Any society will always have a certain number of persons
who, for various reasons, are not motivated to strive for personal
achievement or participate fully in the life of the community. There-
fore, the determination is difficult to make whether cannabis use
influences a person to drop out and, if it does, to what extent.

Some individuals possess particular personality as well as psycho-
social characteristics which in specified instances could produce
amotivation or dropping out. However, little likelihood exists that
the introduction of a single element such as marihuana use would
significantly change the basic personality and character structure of
the individual to any degree. An individual is more likely to drop
out when a number of circumstances have joined at a given point
in his lifetime, producing pressures with which he has difficulty in
coping. These pressures often coincide with situations involving pain-

ful or difficult judgments resulting from a need to adjust to the
pressures of the social environment.

Many young people, particularly in the college population, are
shielded in their earlier years from experiences which might be emo-
tionally stressful or unpleasant. Some young people, so sheltered, are
neither equipped to make mature and independent judgments nor
prepared to enjoy the new-found freedom of the university or college
in a mature and responsible way. Some of these students are often
unable to cope with social or academic adversity. After being sheltered
for so long, some of these young people may be easily attracted to
experiences which promise new excitement and to fall under the
influence of a peer group whose values and living patterns may be
inimical to a productive, healthy and continuous process of personal
growth and maturity. In these instances, marihuana serves as the
medium by which these individuals encounter social and psycho-
logical experiences with which they are ill-equipped to cope.

Certain numbers of these young people have demonstrated what
is described as amotivation long before the smoking of marihuana
became fashionable. Adolescence is often a particularly difficult pe-
riod of searching in many directions at the same time. In addition
to seeking a concept of “self” the adolescent is, at the same time, at-
tempting to comprehend the nature of the world around him and to
identify his status and role in society.

Different individuals, with different backgrounds, socialization pat-
terns, belief systems and levels of emotional maturity cope with the
period of transition from childhood to adulthood in different ways.
For a small number, dropping out might be one of these coping
mechanisms whether or not they use marihuana. For others, the re-
sponse to the difficult adjustments of adolescence takes other forms,
some of which are more acceptable, “normal” and easier for adults
to understand.

The young person who does not find it possible to cope with the
pressures of his adolescent developmental period in ways convenient
to the understanding of adult society should not be rejected, stigma-
tized or labeled. He requires both support and understanding and
the opportunity to participate in roles which have meaning for him
and in ways in which he feels comfortable. For a certain number of
young people, marihuana and the mystique of the experience eases this
passage by helping them share their feelings, doubts, inadequacies
and aspirations with peers with whom they feel safe and comfortable.

Dropping Down

Apart from the concern over youthful dropping out and idleness,
there is also widespread concern about “dropping down” or under-
achieving.

Parents frequently express fear that marihuana will undermine or
interfere with academic and vocational career development and
achievement by focusing youthful interests on the drug and those
associated with the drug subculture. Some parents make considerable
sacrifices for their children to go to school, and the fears that mari-
huana might undermine the academic, emotional and vocational
development of their young are quite understandable.

The Commission reviewed a number of studies related to marihuana
use by high school and college youth. Xo conclusive evidence was
found demonstrating that marihuana by itself is responsible for aca-
demic or vocational failure or “dropping down," although it could be
one of many contributory reasons. Many studies reported that the
majority of young people who have used marihuana received aver-
age or above-average grades in school.

In part, underachievement is related to a view of what one individual
judges to be the achievement capacity of another. This judgment is
often made without concern for what the individual himself feels about
his potential, his interests and his goals. Perceptions about achieve-
ment also frequently fail to take into consideration the individual
feelings about the goals of his peers and the values of the larger
society, including the relative prestige and status attached to various
academic programs, occupations and professions.

Youth and Radical Politics

Aside from the issue of unconventional life styles and the concerns
evoked by them, the other major concern of the sixties which related
to youth and drugs was radical politics.

During the latter half of the decade, youthful anti-war groups were
organized on many of the nation's college campuses and high schools.
These groups could be divided into two segments. The largest segment
consisted of concerned, sometimes confused, frustrated and well-mean-
ing petition signers and demonstrators. Within this large group there
was a small coterie of individuals who constantly sought to turn the
demonstration into a confrontation and to protest for peace by means
of violence. The second segment consisted of organizations of indi-
viduals whose stated purpose was to undermine the social and political
stability of the society through violent means.

What must be clearly understood, however, is that among the young
people, and some not so young, who protested against the war in
Vietnam, only a minority were bent on violence and manipulated and
corrupted these otherwise peaceful demonstrations for their own
purposes.

At the various gatherings, a number of the young people protesting
in these mass groups did smoke marihuana. We will never know how
many were initiated to marihuana use during the course of these peace

demonstrations. The fact remains, however, that in the large camp-
ins, such as those in Washington, marihuana was involved in two ways.
First, there was the “normal” use in which the smoking was part of
the social experience. Individuals came together and smoked, in part,
to acknowledge and strengthen group solidarity. Second, another quite
different aspect of the marihuana use at these gatherings said, in effect,
“we know it’s illegal but go and arrest all of us for doing it. . . .”
This aspect can perhaps best be characterized as a symbolic challenge
to authority.

Unfortunately, however, the media, particularly television and some
of the news magazines, sometimes portrayed the image of a group of
young people plotting the overthrow of the nation by violent means
while under the influence of marihuana. In those relatively few in-
stances where explosives and other violent means were employed, the
evidence points to a cold and calculated plan which was neither con-
ceived nor executed under the influence of marihuana.

As a result of these protests and demonstrations, therefore, radical
politics has been seen by many as a mechanism through which large
numbers of young people would be introduced to marihuana as well
as to other drugs. Radical political activity or mass political protest
is viewed by some as a threat to the welfare of the nation and is as-
sumed to be aided and encouraged by our enemies.

The involvement of large numbers of youth in political activism
and the concomitant public concern about drug use have beclouded the
issue of marihuana use and have led to a broadening of the concerns
about marihuana on the part of adults.

Some of the radical movement’s leaders abetted this tendency by
pointing out the alleged irrationality and unfairness of the marihuana
laws to recruit members to their ranks. Not surprising is the fact that
45% of the adult respondents in the National Survey felt that mari-
huana is often promoted by people who are enemies of the United
States. Nor is it surprising that this belief is a function of age. While
22% of all young people (12-to-l7 years of age) and 26% of young
adults (18-to-25 years) identified marihuana with national enemies,
more than one-half (58%) of those persons 50 years and older did so.

Youth and the Work Ethic

Of the many issues related to youth and the use of marihuana, one
that greatly troubles many adults, is youthful attitudes toward work.
The work ethic in our society is based on a belief that work is a good
and necessary activity in and of itself.

The traditional view holds that work is not only a right and moral
act but that it keeps people from mischief and from wasting time on
harmful recreational pleasures. The rationale for this thesis is that

100

work in American society has served as the primary means by which
persons acquired the treasured symbols of society.

In fact, throughout much of our history, with the exception of
the small number who inherited or married wealth, no ethical alter-
native to work existed. In recent years, the increased emphasis placed
upon leisure time activities has resulted in shorter work weeks, longer
vacation periods and more paid holidays.

Among the concerns of the adults about today's youthful attitudes
toward work and leisure are that young people seem to enjoy their
recreational pursuits so much that they forget that to a considerable
degree their enjoyment is paid for by the labor of others.

Many young people do not express the same level of concern as
their parents did about preparing themselves for a career and “get-
ting ahead in the world." In part, this attitude is attributable to the
fact that increasingly, the results of this labor are not tangible, ma-
terial goods. Service occupations generally do not produce such tang-
ible products, and even in manufacturing industries the individual
worker is usually too remote from the product to feel any pride or
interest in it. In both instances, the traditional symbol of the “man-
hood" of work, a tangible product, is no longer present.

In sum, society has become increasingly disturbed by certain atti-
tudes of today’s youth which seem to stress pleasure, fun, and enjoy-
ment without a counterbalancing concern for a disciplined and
sustained work effort. Nevertheless, the number of young people who
view work as unimportant is small when compared to the total number
of young people. The Commission has found no evidence to suggest
that the majority of youth are unwilling or incapable of productive
and disciplined work performance. In fact, the great majority of
young people are performing their tasks in industry, the professions
and education quite effectively.

Although many young people delay entry into the work force to
enjoy the fruits of our prosperous society, this delay does not mean
they will not one day contribute their best efforts to the continued
growth and advancement of the nation.

The Changing Social Scene

The present confusion about the effects of youthful marihuana use
upon the dominant social order is caused by a variety of intprrplated
social concerns, many of them pmnHnnnllv rhnrgpH issues, including
anti-war demonstrations, campus riots, hippie life styles, the rising
incidence of crime and delinquency and the increased usage of all
illicit drugs. The focus of concern about marihuana is aggravated by
the data overload mentioned in Chapter I, by the outpouring of in-
cidental information about the drug and its effects in a form and
volume far beyond the capacity of the readers or listeners to assimi-

101

late or interpret. Rather than informing the public, much of the data
disseminated has produced frustration and misinterpretation of the
information presented.

Adult society, including parents and policy-makers, finds it dif-
ficult to comprehend and account for many of the attitudes and be-
havior of the young, including the use of marihuana. In many cases
the adults are still influenced by the myths of an earlier period which
overstated the dangers of the drug. At a time of great social change
and turbulence, the tendency to depend on the “traditional wisdom,”
and its moral justification, is a strong one.

Just as youth must try to understand and appreciate the strengths
of the institutions of our society, adults must try to understand the
times through the eyes of their children. Where marihuana is con-
cerned, society must try to understand its role in the lives of those
who use it. The key to such understanding lies in the changes which
have taken place in society within recent years and the effects these
changes have had on succeeding generations of youth. The increased
use of marihuana is only one of these effects.

One focal point in discussion between generations is the contrast
between the use of marihuana and the use of alcohol. Many young
people perceive that marihuana is less dangerous than alcohol in
terms of its addiction potential and long-term physical and psycho-
logical consequences. Many believe also that marihuana and other
psychoactive drugs make it possible to expand their perceptions and
see this as a perfectly legitimate objective.

Viewed against the background of the profound changes of re-
cent years in the fields of economics, politics, religion, family life,
housing patterns, civil rights, employment and recreation, the use of
marihuana by the nation’s youth must be seen as a relatively minor
change in social patterns of conduct and as more of a consequence of
than a contributor to these major changes.

When the issue of marihuana use is placed in this context of society’s
larger concerns, marihuana does not emerge as a major issue or threat
to the social order. Rather, it is most appropriately viewed as a part
of the whole of society’s concerns about the growth and development
of its young people.

In view of the magnitude and nature of change which our society
has experienced during the past 25 years, the thoughtful observer
is not likely to attribute any of the major social problems resulting
from this change to marihuana use. Similarly, it is unlikely that
marihuana will affect the future strength, stability or vitality of our
social and political institutions. The fundamental principles and
values upon which the society rests are far too enduring to go up
in the smoke of a marihuana cigarette.

102

social response
to marihuana use

;iI find the great thing in this world is
not so much where we stand, as in what
direction we are moving : To reach the port of heaven.

we must sail sometimes with the wind
and sometimes against it — but we must sail and
not drift, nor lie at anchor.*5
Oliver 'Wendell Holmes,
The Autocrat of the Breakfast T able (1858)

A general interpretation of the National Survey indicates that
roughly one -quarter of the American public is convinced that criminal
sanctions should be withdrawn entirely from marihuana use. Another
fourth of the public is equally convinced that existing social and
legal policy is appropriate, and would ordinarily jail possessors, with
the exception of young first offenders. Approximately half of the
citizenry is confused about what marihuana means and ambivalent
about what society ought to do about its use. This half of the popula-
tion is unenthusiastic about classifying the marihuana user as a
criminal, but is reluctant to relinquish formal control over him.

In considering social and legal policy alternatives, the Commission
has analyzed the pattern of social response to marihuana use.

The Initial Social Response

As we noted in Chapter I, the initial social reaction to marihuana
use was shaped by the narcotics policy adopted by the Federal Gov-
ernment. In the early legislation, marihuana was officially character-

103

ized as a narcotic on the basis of the widely shared assumption that
it was a habit- forming drug, leading inevitably to a form of depend-
ence. Although the medical community was aware that marihuana was
distinguishable from the opiates in that it did not produce physical
dependence, no functional distinction was drawn ; it was assumed that
most users were psychologically compelled to continue using the drug.
As one psychiatrist noted in 1934, the marihuana “user wants to recap-
ture over and over again the ecstatic, elated state into which the drug
lifts him . . . The addiction to cannabis is a sensual addiction: it is
in the services of the hedonistic elements of the personality.”

The notion of psychological dependence is still ill-defined, and was
understood even less in the early days of American marihuana use.
The Commission has concluded that the automatic classification of
marihuana as “addictive” was derived primarily from an underlying
social perception of the substrata of society which used the drug:
aliens, prostitutes, and persons at the bottom of the socioeconomic
ladder.

Additional characteristics of the opiates were also transferred to
marihuana. Particularly important in this regard was the association
of marihuana with aggressive behavior and violent crime. One district
attorney in New Orleans, where marihuana use was particularly com-
mon, wrote in 1931 :

It is an ideal drug to cut off inhibitions quickly ... At the present
time the underworld has been quick to realize the value of this drug
in subjugating the will of human derelicts to that of a master mind.
Its use sweeps away all restraint, and to its influence may be at-
tributed many of our present day crimes. It has been the experience
of the Police and Prosecuting Officials in the South that immediately
before the commission of many crimes the use of marihuana ciga-
rettes has been indulged in by criminals so as to relieve themselves
from the natural restraint which might deter them from the commis-
sion of criminal acts, and to give them the false courage necessary
to commit the contemplated crime.

By 1931, those states in which marihuana use was at all common had
formally responded with a total eliminationist policy. They generally
amended the preexisting narcotics legislation to include marihuana.
Meanwhile, in 1929, the Federal Government already had classified
marihuana officially as a “habit-forming drug,” along with the opiates
and cocaine, in the legislation which established two federal “farms”
for treating narcotics addicts in Fort Worth, Texas, and Lexington,
Kentucky.

During the 1930’s, the remaining states criminalized marihuana use
by adopting the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, in which the drug was
included (optionally) in the definition of narcotic drugs. Then, in

104

1937, Congress adopted the Marihuana Tax Act, completing the initial
period of official response to marihuana use.

A difference of opinion among historians still exists as to why policy-
makers thought national legislation was necessary at that time. What-
ever the reason, however, Congress responded swiftly, without much
attempt to learn the facts about the drug and its use. The assumptions
underlying that legislation were summarized in the Report of the
House Ways and Means Committee :

Under the influence of this drug the will is destroyed and all power
of directing and controlling thought is lost. Inhibitions are released.
As a result of these effects, it appeared from testimony produced
at the hearings that many violent crimes have been and are being
committed by persons under the influence of this drug. Not only
is marihuana used by the hardened criminals to steel them to commit
violent crimes, but it is also being placed in the hands of high-school
children in the form of marihuana cigarettes by unscrupulous
peddlers. Cases were cited at the hearings of school children who
have been driven to crime and insanity through the use of this drug.
Its continued use results many times in impotency and insanity.

When Congress escalated penalties for narcotics offenses in 1951
and again in 1956, marihuana was included, with the following effects :

Possession

Minimum

sentence

First offense 2 years

Second offense 5 years

Third and subsequent offnese 10 years

Fine $20, 000

Sale

Minimum

sentence

First offense 5 years

Second and subsequent offense. 10 years

Sale to minor by adult 10 years

Parole or probation were made unavailable to all except first of-
fenders in the possession category.

The perceptions of 1937 were perpetuated in the comments of Sena-
tor Price M. Daniel, Chairman of the Senate subcommittee consider-
ing the 1956 Act, although by now an important new factor had been
added :

Marihuana is a drug which starts most addicts in the use of drugs.
Marihuana, in itself a dangerous drug, can lead to some of the worst
crimes committed bv those who are addicted to the habit. Evidently,
its use leads to the heroin habit and then to the final destruction of
the persons addicted.

105

The Change

With the adoption of marihuana use by middle and upper class
college youth in the mid-60’s, the exaggerated notion of the drug’s
dangers and the social tension so widespread during this period
combined to reopen the question of the impact of marihuana use.
But governmental policy held to the appropriateness of existing
law.

Arrests, prosecutions, convictions and sentences of imprisonment
all increased at both the federal and state levels. Marihuana arrests by
the U.S. Bureau of Customs increased approximately 362% from
fiscal year 1965 to 1970. Arrests by the Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs, an agency which concerns itself primarily with
sale, rose 80% from 1965 to 1968. Because major responsibility for en-
forcing the possession laws lies at the state level, state arrests rose
dramatically (1,000%) during the five years from 1965 to 1970.
Although the data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
are not comprehensive, the FBI sample tracks the continuing increase
of state arrests (Table 6) .

Table 6.-ST ATE MARIHUANA ARRESTS

Year Arrests Percentage

increase

1965 18,815

1966 31,119 65.39

1967 61,843 98.73

1968 95,870 55.02

1969 118,903 24.02

1970 188,682 58.68

In the wake of this upsurge in marihuana arrests, the criminal
justice system faced a far from usual “criminal” population. None-
theless, judging from federal figures, the number of people prosecuted,
convicted, and incarcerated did rise substantially as prosecutors and
judges attempted to carry out the law.

Beginning in 1966, however, the proportion of defendants ultimately
convicted declined gradually, as did the percentage of defendants
who were incarcerated, and the average length of their sentences. This
response reflected an attempt to mitigate the harshness of the law as
applied to this new user population. By 1968, the trend toward leniency
seemed to have temporarily leveled off, before it accelerated again in
1969 (Table 7).

Paralleling the vigorous law enforcement effort between 1965 and
1968 was a punitive reaction in the schools and large numbers of
students using marihuana were suspended, expelled or referred to

106

the police. Similarly, the military's first reaction to the surge of mari-
huana use took the form of court-martial, administrative punishment,
or discharge from the service.

Table 7.— DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL MARIHUANA ARRESTS

Average
length of

Total Percent Percent sentence

Year defendants convicted incarcerated (in months)

1964 85 49

1965 523 90 52 58.2

1966 746 87 45 53.7

1967 941 80 38.5 51.0

1968 1,433 79 39.4 51.2

1969 2,189 76 34.3 52.6

1970 2,082 73 27.4 46.7

1971 3,323 60 28.5 39.9

The family, however, suffered the most from the sudden conflict
between accepted norms and this expression of youthful independence.
The use of drugs, particularly marihuana, became a significant bar-
rier between parent and child. Many young people adopted marihuana
as a symbol of their uneasiness with society's prevailing norms.

As noted in Chapter I, the sudden increase in marihuana use pre-
cipitated extensive research by the medical and scientific communities.
By 1969, a consensus emerged holding that many of the earlier be-
liefs about the effects of marihuana were erroneous. Available U.S.
data seemed to indicate that dependence on the drug was rare, as
was the incidence of psychosis among marihuana users. Particularly
important was the recognition that there was little, if any, convincing
proof that marihuana caused aggressive behavior or crime. As such
findings accumulated, public attention was drawn increasingly to the
consequences of existing policy: soaring arrests, convictions and in
some states, lengthy sentences.

Policy-makers, in social institutions and government, as well as
the public began to believe that the harshness of the criminal penal-
ties was far out of proportion to the dangers posed by the drug. As
users were incarcerated, newspapers and television stations often
brought the matter to public attention, particularly when the arrested
youngster came from a prominent family.

Official response to this development was twofold : a trend toward
leniency in marihuana cases within the legal system, and a recogni-
tion by policy-makers of widespread uncertainty regarding the effects
of marihuana.

Reflecting the first response, the courts, prosecutors and police ap-
plied existing law more leniently, and the law-makers in most states

107

and at the federal level changed the letter of the law, reducing the
penalties for possession of marihuana, generally to a misdemeanor
(up to a year in jail). In the process, they repealed the mandatory
minimums which had been of major concern to the judiciary.

By June 1970, 24 states and the District of Columbia had reduced
the penalties, although 34 states and the District still classified mari-
huana as a narcotic. Meanwhile, on the federal level, Congress had
been considering the Nixon Administration’s comprehensive proposal
to overhaul the national government’s patchwork of drug legislation.

Since the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914, federal
drug laws had taken the form of tax measures, an approach com-
pelled for constitutional reasons. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
followed the same format. The result, however, was a complex set of
offenses involving order forms and registrations. When the Supreme
Court declared certain aspects of the Tax Act unconstitutional in
1969, revision of the law became essential. Taking up the challenge,
the Administration proposed a major piece of legislation which
tightened control over pharmaceutical distributions and also reap-
praised the penalty structure for narcotics and dangerous drug
offenses.

Possession of all drugs, including marihuana, was reduced to a mis-
demeanor. Special treatment for first offenders was provided, allow-
ing expungement of the record upon satisfactory completion of a
probationary period. Casual transfers of marihuana were treated in
the same manner as possession. After a series of wide-ranging hear-
ings, Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention
and Control Act, and on October 27, 1970, the President signed it
into law.

After passage of the new federal drug law, the Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws adopted a Uniform Controlled
Substances Act, conforming in structure and emphasis to the federal
law. Although the Uniform Act specifies no penalties, the Commis-
sioners recommended that possession of all drugs be a misdemeanor.

At this writing, 42 of the states and the District of Columbia classi-
fy possession as a misdemeanor or have adopted special provisions
so classifying possession of small amounts of marihuana. In half of
the remaining eight jurisdictions, the courts have discretion to sent-
ence possessors as misdemeanants.

In 11 jurisdictions, casual transfers are treated in the same manner
as possession, and in 27 jurisdictions, conditional discharge is avail-
able to certain classes of offenders.

The second characteristic of the 1969-70 official response was its
acknowledgment of uncertainty. No longer perceived as a major threat
to public safety, marihuana use had now become primarily an issue
of private and public health. Scientific researchers were asked to

108

define the nature and scope of the health concern. In a sense, law-
makers took the minimum official action dictated by social and scienti-
fic realities, but were uncertain where to go from there. The need to
know more about the effects of the drug, particularly its chronic,
long-term effects, became the core of official response.

Many states appointed special task forces and commissions to re-
port on marihuana and drug abuse in general. Congress directed the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare to file annual Reports
on Marihuana and Health and, in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970, established this Commission.

The Current Response

In addition to an objective appraisal of the effects of marihuana use,
this Commission was directed to evaluate the efficacy of existing law.
The marihuana laws were and still are the focus of much public debate.
We have recognized from the outset that a meaningful evaluation of
the law is dependent upon an understanding of objectives and the
social context in which the law operates. Particularly important in
this connection are the attitudes and practices of society’s non-legal
institutions and the general direction of public opinion.

In order to comprehend the entire range of contemporary social
response, the Commission launched a threefold inquiry. First, we de-
signed a series of projects designed to ascertain opinion and behavior
within the criminal justice system. Included were an analysis of all
marihuana arrests during the last six months of 1970 in six metropoli-
tan jurisdictions, a similar study of all federal marihuana arrests
during 1970, an opinion survey of all local prosecuting attorneys, and
a similar survey of attitudes among a representative sample of judges,
probation officers, and court clinicians.

We next focused on the practice and opinion of the medical, clerical,
educational, and business communities. To this end, we solicited written
responses from representative groups, invited various spokesmen to
testify before us, made numerous field visits to secondary schools, col-
leges and universities and surveyed opinion in free clinics and univer-
sity health services. We also launched a study of drug use and abuse
in industry which will be covered in our second Report on drug abuse.

Finally, we commissioned the National Survey of public opinion
about marihuana to which we have previously referred.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

How does the criminal justice system respond when an enormous
increase in an illegal conduct, of a primarily private nature, makes
full enforcement of the law impossible, and when there is widespread
doubt about the rationale for making the conduct illegal? This ques-

109

tion guided our analysis of the responses and opinions from members
of the criminal justice system.

Law Enforcement Behavior

On the basis of a detailed study of all federal marihuana arrests
during 1970 and of a sample of state arrests during the last half of
1970 in Cook County, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Omaha, Nebraska;
Tucson, Arizona ; San Mateo County, California ; and the Washington,
D.C. Metropolitan Area, we present the following findings.

Federal

The federal authorities make little or no effort to seek out violators
of laws proscribing possession of marihuana. The Federal Government
ceded primary responsibility for enforcement of possession laws to the
states several years ago. However, in the course of general enforcement
activity, the federal authorities do make possession arrests. If a person
is arrested at the federal level for possession or casual transfer of small
or moderate amounts of marihuana, the case generally is either
dropped or turned over to the states for prosecution.

The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs does not concen-
trate much of its energy on marihuana. By its own estimate, approxi-
mately 6% of its investigative efforts are directed at marihuana
offenses. Most BNDD marihuana arrests occur as a result of the
agency’s general investigation into the commercial distribution of all
drugs.

The overwhelming majority of all federal marihuana arrests occur
at or near the borders, as the Bureau of Customs, sometimes in coopera-
tion with the Border Patrol of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, attempts to interdict the importation of the drug.

State

At the state level, where enforcement of the possession laws is fo-
cused, about 93% of the arrests in our sample were for this offense.
Yet, there was little formal investigative effort to seek out violators of
the possession laws. Instead, 69% of all marihuana arrests arose from
spontaneous or accidental situations where there had been no investi-
gation at all. Well over half of these spontaneous arrests occurred
when police stopped an automobile and saw or smelled marihuana.
The remaining spontaneous arrests occurred when police stopped
persons on the street or in a park and discovered marihuana.

In an additional 16% of the cases, the marihuana arrest resulted
from police follow-up of a phoned tip or similar lead. In less than
11% of all the cases was there any significant police involvement.
(Scope of investigation was unknown in about 4% of the cases).

110

Because of this enforcement pattern, arrests were concentrated
among the young. Typically the arrestee was a white male, in school
or employed in a blue collar job, without a prior record. Of those
arrested at the state leyel :

• 58% were under 21 ; 30% were between 21 and 26 ; 10% were oyer
26 (2% unknown)

• 85% were male; 15% were female

• 77% were white ; 21% were black; 2% were Spanish speaking

• 27% were students, 2% were military; 28% were employed in blue
collar jobs; 15% were employed in white collar jobs; 11% were
unemployed (16% unknown)

• 44% had not been arrested preyiously; 31% had been arrested
preyiously (in 25% of the cases, the extent of prior contact was
unknown) ; only 6% of the arrestees had been preyiously in-
carcerated

Such arrestees generally possessed only small amounts of mari-
huana. Of our entire sample of 3,071 arrests:

• 67% were for possession of less than one ounce (18% were for less
than one gram ; 23% were for between one and 5 grams ; 26% were
for between 5 and 30 grams)

• 7% were for possession of between one ounce and 4 ounces

• 8% were for possession of oyer 4 ounces

• 13% were for possession of unknown quantities

• 3% were for transfer of less than one ounce

• 3% were for transfer of oyer one ounce*

Offenders at the state leyel were generally arrested in groups.

• 29% were arrested alone

• 24% were arrested with one other person

• 43% were arrested with two or more other persons (4% unknown)

Faced with this population of offenders, the criminal justice sys-
tem responded often by dismissing or diverting to a non-criminal
institution the young first -offense possessor of small amounts.

Adult Cases

At least 48% of the cases were terminated in the defendant’s fay or:

• The police themselyes disposed of 10% of the cases, refraining
from filing charges, or diyerting the case to some other institution.

• The prosecution declined to file complaints in an additional 7%
of the cases.

• An additional 28% of the cases were dismissed in the course of
pretrial judicial proceedings.

• In 3% of the cases, the defendant was acquitted at trial.

‘Because the figures have been rounded off, the total is not always 100%.

Ill

Juvenile Oases

At least 70% of the cases were terminated in the youth’s favor:

• The police themselves disposed of 21% of the cases, refraining
from referring the youth to juvenile authorities or diverting the
case to some other agency.

• An additional 48% of the cases were dismissed either because
the juvenile officer responsible for filing a delinquency petition
refused to do so, or because the judge dismissed the case prior to
trial.

• In 1 % of the cases, the juvenile was found innocent.

Of the entire sample of arrests, both adult and juvenile, 33% of
those apprehended were ultimately sentenced, after pleading guilty
or being found guilty. (Since 11% of the 3,071 cases were still pend-
ing at the time of our study, and disposition was unknown in 2% of
the cases, the figure may be as high as 40% of all arrests).

Of those convicted for possession of marihuana, 24% were incar-
cerated, usually for a year or less. Most of the remaining persons were
put on probation, although some were fined only. By comparison, of
those convicted of sale (5% of the convicted individuals), 65% were
incarcerated, usually for over a year.

In short, in the 2,610 cases where disposition was final and was
available to us, 6% of those apprehended were ultimately incarcerated.

From this analysis of enforcement behavior, it appears that the
law enforcement community has adopted a policy of containment.
Although effort is sometimes expended to seek out private mari-
huana use, the trend is undoubtedly to invoke the marihuana pos-
session laws only when the behavior (possession) comes out in the
open. We were told by police officials in some cities, for example, that
arrests are made only when marihuana use is flaunted in public.

The salient feature of the present lawT has become the threat of
arrest for indiscretion. The high percentage of cases which, after ar-
rest, are disposed of by dismissal or informal diversion attests to the
ambivalence of police officials, prosecutors and judges about the ap-
propriateness of existing law. Anyone processed through the entire
system does run a risk of incarceration, especially when the individual
had a prior record and the offense was sale or possession of a significant
amount.

Law Enforcement Opinion

Prosecutorial opinion toward the existing system suggests both a
containment objective and a flexible response. As to prosecution
policy :

• 31% of the prosecutors state that they would not prosecute any-
one arrested at a private social gathering of marihuana users
who are passing a cigarette

112

• Large numbers of prosecutors admit that they consider factors
other than strength of the evidence in deciding whether or not
to prosecute a possession case ; 41% cite age, 38% cite lack of prior
record, 36% consider the amount of marihuana seized and 26%
take into account the family situation of the accused ; 31% thought
one or another of these non-legal factors was most important in
his decision

• 29% of the prosecutors acknowledge that they use informal proba-
tion in lieu of prosecution in some cases

As to the efficacy of existing law, a majority of the prosecutors agree
that the marihuana laws do not deter, or deter only minimally :

• Persons under 30 from initiating use ( 53% )

• Users from using regularly ( 56% )

• Users from transferring small amounts for little or no remunera-
tion (55%)

From the studies made by the Commission of enforcement practices,
we consider this to be a realistic assessment .

Conversely, however, the prosecutors agree that the laws have a sig-
nificant effect in deterring users from smoking marihuana openly
(62% ) and persons over 30 from initiating use (44% ) .

We also asked the district attorneys for their views on an appro-
priate legal policy concerning marihuana use. Their opinions tend to
fall in three groups. One group, representing about 25% of the prose-
cutors, favors the status quo, and does not want any further reduction
in penalties. A fifth of the prosecutors conclude, on the basis of their
experience, that possession of marihuana, and perhaps sale of the drug,
should be removed entirely from the criminal justice system.

The remaining prosecutors, a majority, is willing to consider miti-
gation of the harshness of the law either by legislation or by benign
exercise of discretion, but is reluctant to relinquish formal, criminal
control. These prosecutors doubt the deterrent value of the law and are
willing to be lenient in appropriate cases, but they believe some use
of the legal system is necessary to prevent an increase in marihuana
use.

Underlying these opinions are diverse attitudes about marihuana
use and the efficacy of existing law. For example, prosecutors who
doubt the efficacy of existing law and reject the “escalation’’ and “ag-
gressive behavior” hypotheses, are generally willing to modify the laws
by their enforcement policies and by legislative reform (Table 8).

The same general pattern of practice and opinion emerges at the
judicial and dispositional level. Only 13% of the responding judges
would jail an adult for possession of marihuana and only 4% said they
would incarcerate a minor. Lesser proportions of probation officers and
clinicians would imprison adults (8% and 1%) and minors (2% and

113

1%). Conversely, 11% of the judges, 15.5% of the probation officers
and 63.5% of the clinicians noted that they would assess no penalty for
possession by adults. For minors, the proportions are 3%, 5%, and
33% respectively.

Table 8.— DISTRICT ATTORNEYS’ OPINIONS

Change favored

Percent who
believe
marihuana
leads to
hard drug
use

Percent who
believe
marihuana
leads to
aggressive
behavior

Percent who
believe the
marihuana
laws do not
deter persons
under 30
from initi-
ating use

Percent
who utilize
informal
probation

None

87.1

51.3

28.5

Reduction of possession
penalties

68.8

35.1

63.2

34.3

Preclusion of incarceration. .

64.7

33.2

Decriminalization of
possession of small
amounts

41.5

21.9

67.2

37.4

Legalization of marihuana...

32.2

11.1

37.8

How to read table: 87.1% of the prosecutors who favor no change in existing law believe
that marihuana leads to the use of hard drugs; in contrast, 32.2% of the prosecutors who
favor legalization believe that marihuana leads to the use of hard drugs.

With regard to appropriate legal policy, the judges exhibit the same
inclination as the prosecutors to look for alternatives within a formal
control system which would avoid the use of criminal penalties. We
asked essentially the same question in two ways and received similar
responses (Table 9).

The judges, as a group, are less enthusiastic about criminal con-
trol than the prosecutors, but are equally unwilling to relinquish for-
mal control. By contrast, the probation officers and clinicians, who
have more personal contact with these offenders and are perhaps more
intensively aware of the control potential of the criminal justice sys-
tem, are highly skeptical about formal control (Tables 10, and 11).

In conclusion, as one proceeds through the criminal justice system,
from district attorneys to court clinicians, the people responsible
for the functioning of that system seem to be decreasingly enthusi-
astic about the appropriateness of criminal control and decreasingly
insistent on any technique for formal control.

114

Table 9.* — JUDGES’ OPINIONS

Types of
control

Means of control
for adult users

Percent

who

favored

Statutory schemes
for possession

Percent

who

favored

Informal

Personal choice

Control outside

24. 3

control

Informal social
control

criminal justice
system

Non-criminal

Required treatment

Expungement of

57. 9

formal

control

Other

criminal record

Criminal

control

Criminal law

Control within
criminal justice
system

11. 5

•Because of a small percentage of non-responses, figures do not always total 100%.

How to read table: When asked to identify the appropriate means of control for adult users,
33% of the judges opted for informal control (11% would rely on personal choice and 22%
would rely on informal social control). Similarly, when asked about the appropriate statutory
scheme for possession, 24.3% of the judges preferred control outside the criminal justice
system, a functional equivalent of “informal control.”

Table 10.*— PROBATION OFFICERS’ OPINIONS

Types of
control

Means of control
for adult users

Percent

who

favored

Statutory schemes
for possession

Percent

who

favored

Informal

control

Personal choice
Informal social
control

32.7

Control outside
criminal justice
system

35.5

Non-criminal

formal

control

Required treatment
Other

11.8

Expungement of
criminal record

54.5

Criminal

control

Criminal law

15.5

Control within
criminal justice
system

*Because of a small number of non-responses, the figures do not always total 100%.

To supplement our survey of behavior and opinion within the
criminal justice system, we also solicited the views of the American
Bar Association. The President of the ABA in turn urged the respec-
tive Committees of the Association to submit their views to us. The
two Committees directly concerned with the drug area, the Committee
on Alcoholism and Drug Beform of the Section on Individual Rights

115

Table 11.*— CLINICIANS’ OPINIONS

Types of
control

Means of control
for adult users

Percent

who

favored

Statutory schemes
for possession

Percent

who

favored

Informal

Personal choice

61.7

Control outside

control

Informal social
control

criminal justice
system

Non-criminal

Required treatment

Expungement of

22.6

formal

control

Other

criminal record

Criminal

control

Criminal law

3.5

Control within
criminal justice
system

•Because of a small number of non-responses, the figures do not always total 100%.

and Responsibilities, and the Committee on Drug Abuse of the Sec-
tion on Criminal Law, were in essential agreement regarding the
appropriate course of action.

Both Committees expressed doubt about the wisdom and legitimacy
of existing policy and about the capacity of the criminal justice system
to deal with marihuana use. They both urged the Commission to rec-
ommend the removal of criminal penalties from possession of the
drug for personal use and casual non-profit transfers. Both Commit-
tees suggested that a regulatory approach to distribution of the drug
be given serious consideration.

THE NON-LEGAL INSTITUTIONS

Law enforcement authorities, given available and prospective re-
sources, cannot possibly enforce the existing marihuana laws fully.
The best they can do is keep marihuana use contained and out of sight.
In addition, many officials within the criminal justice system are re-
luctant to enforce the marihuana laws, being either uncommitted to
the usefulness of this particular law or opposed to the law itself.
The net result is for the legal system to leave much of the responsibility
for social control to other social institutions such as family, schools,
churches, and the medical profession. Since these other institutions
themselves have relied heavily on the legal system for control, caution
and confusion now dominate the social response to marihuana use.

The diminishing severity of the law enforcement response may not
have occurred if the other institutions of society had continued to
regard the marihuana user as a criminal. However, many of these
institutions have come to view the marihuana user primarily in social

116

or medical terms, and to recommend a form of social control in accord
with their respective self-interests or orientations. In many cases, the
attitudes of these other institutions mirror that of the criminal justice
system : uncertainty about the proper role of formal legal control.

The Family

The most important institution for instilling social norms is the
family. Parental attitudes generally parallel public opinion, and
specific responses in our Xational Survey suggest an inclination among
parents and non-parents to deal with youthful marihuana users
through discussion and persuasion rather than harsh or punitive meas-
ures. When asked what action they would take upon discovering that
one of their teenage children was smoking marihuana with friends,
47% of the adults responded that they would use persuasion and
reason. Twenty -three percent favored a punitive approach. Interest-
ingly, 9% of the latter group felt so strongly about the matter that
they were willing to report their own child to the police. A considerable
number, 35%, indicated that they were uncertain about what to do,
or failed to respond to this multiple response question.

The non-punitive trend was also apparent when the adults were asked
what they would do if their teenage child was arrested for a marihuana
offense. A substantial number (58%) indicated they would attempt
to extricate their child from the situation, many not wishing their
child to have a police record, while 34% expressed the sentiment that
the child’s arrest would help him learn a lesson.

The Schools

Marihuana use continues to increase among high school and college
students. The Xational Survey reveals that 30% of the high school
juniors and seniors have used marihuana. The Xational Survey also
reveals that 44% of those currently attending college at the graduate
or undergraduate levels have used it, while other surveys indicate this
figure is significantly higher in some major universities.

Xot surprisingly, there has been, during the last two years, an
appreciable change in the attitudes of school administrators, faculty
and even of the boards of education and trustees toward marihuana
use. Administrators at the secondary and college levels are generally
more relaxed and tolerant toward marihuana use than they were
during the mid-1960's, when support for a punitive response was
common. After the initial shock of widespread use dissipated, many
school officials came to believe that strong disciplinary action, includ-
ing suspension and arrest, was counterproductive. In addition, as the
evidence accumulated that marihuana was not as dangerous as had
once been thought, parental and community pressures were sometimes

117

brought to bear on school administrators to be less punitive and more
understanding of marihuana use.

At the secondary level, the policies very somewhat from state to
state and even within states. Nevertheless, school boards generally
seem to have become less enthusiastic about suspension and arrest as
an appropriate response to marihuana use. One school administrator
in Philadelphia noted sarcastically that if all users were suspended
or arrested, the high schools would become empty cells, with their
entire clientele turned out onto the streets.

A West Coast official emphasized that student alcohol use was a
much more serious problem than marihuana use; he even suggested
that legalization of marihuana might reduce alcohol use among the
young. The Commission ascertained that no suspensions for mari-
huana use had occurred during 1971 in the entire school system of a
southern metropolitan area. Although security officers in that system
did make 20 arrests, they were all for selling marihuana and other
drugs.

At the secondary level, then, increased reliance is being placed on
persuasion rather than discipline, ^s a means of discouraging mari-
huana use. Drug education programs, now being instituted in almost
every school system, often include information about alcohol and
tobacco. We will explore the various pedagogical techniques employed
in such programs and will attempt to evaluate them in our next
Report.

At the college level, the response is even more lenient. In many cases
official neutrality or even protection against police intervention sub-
stitutes for the restraint common at the secondary level. Under formal
or informal arrangements with local law enforcement officials, many
schools bar on-campus arrests for marihuana use. Apparently they
have concluded that enforcement of the marihuana laws causes more
harm than does use of the drug. In some cases, college authorities have
substituted their own policy for society’s official policy. The Commis-
sion learned at one of its hearings in Chicago, for example, that a
major Midwestern university explicitly declared that students would
be subject to university disciplinary action if they were found in
possession of more than one week’s supply of marihuana.

Control at the college level is usually considered a medical concern
and is handled either through the university health centers or free
clinics. The trend toward leniency is also apparent in the policy
responses of the representative sample of university health service
and free clinic physicians, whose profession presumably brings them
into contact with the population most at risk from marihuana. Among
personnel of the free clinics, 62% of the respondents favor legaliza-
tion; 5% would continue the present policy, and the remainder would
either reduce penalties (11%) or await further research (22%).

118

Even among the “establishment-oriented5* health service personnel,
similar attitudes prevail. Xineteen percent would continue the present
policy, and 16% would legalize. Of the remaining 55% (10% did not
respond), 38% would reduce penalties and 17% would await further
research. This pattern of views bears a striking resemblance to that
of the prosecuting attorneys, and indeed of the public at large. The
large majority indicates uneasiness with the present system and opposi-
tion to legalization, but is uncertain about exactly what to do.

The Churches

The nation’s churches play a major role in the process by which
society’s norms and values are transmitted to the young. Moral educa-
tion. through individual and family counseling by church personnel,
is influential in the process of social control, particularly for adoles-
cents. Consequently, the Commission sought to learn the attitudes,
responses and recommendations of the clergy.

The larger societal uncertainty about the social and moral implica-
tions of marihuana use is also reflected in the attitudes of religious
institutions. For example, Dr. Thomas E. Price, speaking for the
Xational Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. before the Com-
mission, referred to marihuana as a “tightly drawn moral knot.” This
uncertainty has led many religious groups to minimize a punitive and
repressive response to marihuana use in their offical statements and
formal programs. Instead, they have concentrated on educational and
rehabilitative programs.

Many church spokesmen have urged a reconsideration of social and
legal policy. The range of their suggestions for change reflects, once
again, widespread uncertainty. Some ask for some form of “adequate”
punishment or supervision so as to discourage marihuana use. Others
say “reform or elimination” of penalties for possession would be
appropriate. And there are those who suggest legalization with some
government regulation. Some church spokesmen have defended exist-
ing policy, recommending only that the law be more strictly and
uniformly enforced.

The Medical Community

In contrast to the mixed opinions of other segments of society, the
medical profession has a rather broad consensus at the present time.
In a series of responses from various medical societies, associations
and committees, we found certain recurrent themes. Every medical
group emphasized the need for more research into the effects of mari-
huana. There was uniform emphasis on how marihuana, as a “drug,”
affects heart, head, blood, brain" and so on. but not on how it affects
society as a behavior. The consensus was that marihuana, the drug,

119

456-964 0 - 72 -9

poses some danger for the individual, physically or psychologically.
Thftjmdy major disagreement is about the degree of such danger. ^
The second recurrent -theme.jvas that marihuana should definitely
not be legalized. Legalization would imply sanction, medical groups
said, with a probable increase in use as a result. One doctor compared

S^alization with the failure of Prohibition: “The fact fthat] Prohibi-
n was a failure doesn’t make alcoholism a good thing and the six
llion or so ( alcoholics) we have are no bargain. Therefore, since
there is no legitimate use for marihuana it seems rather silly to legalize
”^ts use to initiate a second headache.” Another reason commonly given
by^physicians for opposing ]egalization is that such a step should be
taken if and when it is proven that marihuana is not dangerous. -
The third common theme of medical opinion was a call for a more
lenient approach toward users, again a position reflected in almost
every quarter of society. One officer of a public health association told
a convention : “ (Our committee) deplores the strong punitive measures
suggested by some because we feel that a jail sentence for the offense
of smoking marihuana is not likely to solve the problem of eliminating
marihuana use. On the contrary, a prison sentence is likely to do
great damage to a young person’s personality as well as to his future
career.” Another group called for prosecutors to use discretionary
powers in handling youthful first offenders.

When discussing penalties, the medical community begins to take
a look at marihuana use as a form of social behavior rather than simply
a drug which produces certain physical and psychological effects. One
v doctor wrote : “Because marihuana in present patterns of use is, by and
f large, a relatively innocuous drug and because its use has many
motivations from simple curiosity to symbolism of hostility to the
‘establishment’, the legal penalties in many jurisdictions throughout
the United States are excessively punitive.”

Summary

Social institutional spokesmen now commonly recognize that control
of marihuana is only partially a law enforcement problem. Opinions
cluster around the propositions that society should not be punitive
on the one hand, but should not make the drug availableTat least for
now. Beyond these points, however, uncertainty prevails. There is no
common vision of an appropriate social control policy.

Each institution is going about the business of control in its own
j way. Parents emphasize mutual communication. The secondary schools
emphasize health education. The colleges recognize personal freedom
so long as it does not jeopardize the educational enterprise. Churches
emphasize uncertainty about the moral implications of marihuana
u$e. The medical fraternity stresses the need for further research into

120

the health consequences of marihuana use. Uncertainly is the com-
mon denominator.

THE PUBLIC RESPONSE

For most Americans marihuana use is not an abstract phenomenon.
Fifteen percent of the adult population, the National Survey revealed,
has tried the drug and 44% of the non-trying adults personally know
someone who has used the drug. Fourteen percent of the youth have
tried the drug and 58% of the non -triers personally know someone who
has used the drug. Indeed, six percent of the non-trying youth indi-
cated that half or more of their friends used marihuana.

The public is also aware of the consequences of the existing system
and concerned about its impact. Ninety-seven percent of the adults
know that selling marihuana is against the law. Only a few less. 94%,
know that possession is against the law. In fact, one fourth of the
adults know someone who has been arrested on a possession charge.
Ninety -two percent of the youth know that sale is prohibited, and
four out of five know that possession is against the law. Fifty -three
percent of the 16- and 17-year-olds actually know someone who has
been arrested for possession.

Acutely aware of the legal consequences of use, the public is also
cognizant of the difficulties encountered by the criminal justice system
in its attempt to enforce a widely-violated law, Adults were asked
whether they mostly agreed or mostly disagreed with a series of 12
selected propositions regarding the desirability of maintaining or
altering the present system of marihuana control. The two propositions
which received the most support relate to problems inherent in the
existing laws.

Eighty-three percent of the adults mostly agreed with the statement
that “because of marihuana a lot of young people who are not criminals
are getting police records and being put in jail.” And 76% agreed that
“laws against marihuana are very hard to enforce because most people
use it in private.”

Marihuana use is more personal than most public issues, but it is
also more confusing. Bombarded in recent years with contradictory
“findings” and statistics about the effects of marihuana, and with
conflicting arguments about public policy, the public tends to believe
everything, whether pro or con. Particularly important in this regard
is the widespread acceptance of beliefs which have little basis in fact.

Approximately half of the adult public believes that “many crimes
are committed by persons who are under the influence of marihuana,”
and that “some people have died from using it.” Seven of every 10
adults believe that “marihuana makes people want to try stronger
things like heroin.” Although the probability that a person believes

121

these statements increases with age, a significant percentage of all
groups are represented.

The underlying confusion is strongly indicated in the contradictory
attitudes toward various reasons for maintaining or changing the law.
For example, 43% of the adults thought, in the context of an argument
for making marihuana legal, that “it should be up to each person to
decide for himself, like with alcohol or tobacco.” Yet 75% of the adults
agreed, in the context of an argument for keeping the laws the way
they are, that “there are already too many ways for people to escape
their responsibilities. We don’t need another one.”

Youth tend to be less convinced than adults that marihuana use
may be fatal to the user, or cause him to commit crime or lead him to
use other drugs ; but young people as a group also are noticeably more
uncertain about these matters. One of every four young people indi-
cated that they were unsure whether marihuana caused death or crime,
and one of every six expressed uncertainty regarding the progression
to other drugs. Similarly, young people were more than twice as likely
as adults to have “no opinion” about the various propositions regarding
the need for legal change.

Public attitudes toward marihuana exhibit both doubt and tension.
On the one hand, we note an acute awareness of the legal consequences
of marihuana use and an appreciation of the adverse impact of process-
ing users through the criminal justice system. On the other hand, we
note some misconceptions about the dangers of marihuana and con-
fusion about the consequences of changing or maintaining the present
system.

Public responses on the basic questions of social and legal policy
reflect the underlying ambivalence. The overwhelming majority of the
public does not want to treat the marihuana user harshly. This attitude
appeared repeatedly through the entire Survey. When asked “For the
good of the country, which of the following courses of action would
be the best thing to do about [marihuana use] ?” the public responded
in the following manner :

Percentage

Youth
Adults * 12-1 7

Handle the problem mostly through the police and
courts: the process of arrest, conviction, punish-
ment 37 20

Handle the problem mostly through medical clinics:

the process of diagnosis, treatment, care 51 48

Don’t worry about the use of marihuana, but spend
time and money on preventing and solving other

crimes 11 11

No opinion 5 20

♦Some adults gave more than one answer.

122

Adults and youth were also asked to look at marihuana use from the
perspective of the system, and to identify the appropriate penalty
for possession of marihuana. Both groups were reluctant to put users
in jail, especially for a first offense. Eighty-three percent of the adults
and 64% of the youth would not incarcerate a youthful first offender;
54% of the adults and 41% of the youth would not even give the young
offender a police record (Table 12) .

Table 12.— ADULTS’ VIEWS ON POSSESSION PENALTIES

Penalty

If defendant is teenager

If defendant is adult

First

offense

(percent)

conviction

(percent)

First

offense

(percent)

conviction

(percent)

No penalty

Fine (no police record). .
Probation

Total

Jail sentence

Up to a week

Up to a year

More than a year

Total

No opinion

YOUNG PEOPLES’ (age 12-17) VIEWS ON POSSESSION PENALTIES

Penalty

If defendant is teenager

If defendant is adult

First

offense

(percent)

conviction

(percent)

First

offense

(percent)

conviction

(percent)

No penalty

Total

Fine (no police record). .

Probation

Jail sentence

Up to a week

Total

Up to a year

More than a year

No opinion

Interestingly, the youth population as a whole was less lenient than
the adult population as a whole. Within each group, however, the
older teenagers and young adults were the most tolerant in all respects.

123

These statistics suggest that the public generally prefers leniency
when responding to questions specifically directed to marihuana use.
But when asked about “control” or “the law” in general, the response
often appears quite harsh. For example, when asked to consider a
range of five alternative control schemes, most adults tended to resist
change.

Thirty-one percent of the adults thought that making marihuana
legally available through regulated channels (like alcohol) was ac-
ceptable ; but 67 % thought it was unacceptable. Although 23% thought
the removal of criminal sanctions from possession was acceptable, 74%
thought this approach was unacceptable. On the other hand, 56% of
the adults thought that the existing laws were acceptable; yet 41%
found the present law unacceptable. Finally, 72% thought “stricter
laws” would be acceptable, while only 26% thought such a change
would be unacceptable. Indeed 43% thought stricter laws were the
“ideal solution” and 62% thought this was the best of the alternatives.

These responses seem to be contradictory. We are puzzled about
what the respondents thought they meant when they expressed a pref-
erence for stricter laws.

They probably did not mean stricter penalties for possession. Such
an interpretation would be entirely inconsistent with responses to
questions aimed directly at appropriate policy toward users. Under
existing law some states still treat first offenders as felons and most
states treat multiple offenders as felons. But, only a third of the adult
respondents would put an adult multiple offender in jail for more
than a year.

The preference for stricter laws might be interpreted to mean heavier
penalties for sale, or better enforcement of existing proscriptions
against trafficking. Two-thirds of the adults did indicate that they pre-
ferred heavier penalties for sale than for possession. But penalties for
selling for profit are already quite heavy in every jurisdiction.

We suspect that a majority of the public, including many of those
favoring “stricter laws,” is actually disturbed about the increase in
marihuana use and would like a system which would work better than
the existing system to discourage use. A majority of the adult public
seeks a better system of control, albeit one which is not punitive to-
ward the user. Apparently uneasy about the individual and social
consequences of the present system, the large center of public opin-
ion is nonetheless reluctant to relinquish formal control.

This insistence on maintenance of formal controls over the user rests
upon two interrelated factors : respect for lawT and faith in the efficacy
of legal control. First, the public does not believe the legal order should
wither away simply because many people choose to violate the laws
against marihuana use. Obedience of the law is highly valued in our
society.

124

This factor is illustrated clearly by the widespread public disagree-
ment with the following arguments for changing the law : 76% of the
adults disagreed with the statement that “young people would have
more respect for the law if marihuana were made legal;” and four out
of five adults disagreed with the statement that “so many people are
using marihuana that it should be made legal.”

Second, most adults believe that legal remedies, even though not
punitive, are necessary to discourage use of the drug. This belief is tied
largely to their understanding of the effects of the drug and is reflected
in the response to the question about “the best way” to handle the use
of marihuana. As we noted earlier. 51% of the public thought that
marihuana use ought to be handled as a medical problem.

Also, the substantial majority of people who are reluctant to in-
carcerate possessors do prefer the imposition of fines without a police
record or probation. Both of these alternatives retain formal control
over the user and indicate faith in the deterrent value of the law. The
public responses in this respect bear a striking resemblance to those
of the judges and probation officers, who repeatedly indicated a pref-
erence for non-punitive formal control.

This interpretation of dominant opinion was drawn from ostensibly
inconsistent responses to a long series of questions on appropriate social
and legal policy. A substantial minority of the public, however, ex-
hibited a consistent pattern of response to all questions. About a quar-
ter of the public is convinced that the criminal sanction should be
withdrawn entirely from marihuana use. Another quarter of the pub-
lic prefers the criminal approach, even for the user.

In sum, the existing system is not supported by the consensus of
public opinion that once existed. There is a consensus that punitive
measures are generally inappropriate. There is also a predominant
opinion that the legal system should not abandon formal control.

125

marihuana and
social policy

“The difficulty in life is the choice.”
George Moore (1900)

A constant tension exists in our society between individual liberties
and the need for reasonable societal restraints. It is easy to go too far
in either direction, and this tendency is particularly evident where
drugs are concerned.

We have guided our decision-making by the belief that the state is
obliged to justfy restraints on individual behavior. Too often indi-
vidual freedoms are submerged in the passions of the moment, and
when that happens, the public policy may be determined more by
rhetoric than by reason. Our effort has been to minimize the emotional
and emphasize the rational in this Report.

Drugs In a Free Society

A free society seeks to provide conditions in which each of its mem-
bers may develop his or her potentialities to the fullest extent, A pre-
mium is placed on individual choice in seeking self-fulfillment. This
priority depends upon the capacity of free citizens not to abuse their
freedom, and upon their willingness to act responsibly toward others

127

and toward the society as a whole. Responsible behavior, through in-
dividual choice, is both the guarantor and the objective of a free
society.

DRUGS AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

The use of drugs is not in itself an irresponsible act. Medical and
scientific uses serve important individual and social needs and are
often essential to our physical and mental well-being. Further, the
use of drugs for pleasure or other non-medical purposes is not in-
herently irresponsible; alcohol is widely used as an acceptable part
of social activities.

We do think the use of drugs is clearly irresponsible when it
impedes the individual’s integration into the economic and social
system. A preference for individual productivity and contribution to
social progress in a general sense still undergirds the American value
structure, and we emphasize the policy-maker’s duty to support this
preference in a public policy judgment.

At the same time, in light of the emerging leisure ethic and the
search for individual meaning and fulfillment noted in Chapter I, we
cannot divorce social policy from the questions raised by the recrea-
tional use of drugs. Productivity and recreation both have a place in
the American ethical system. They are not inconsistent unless the
individual’s use of leisure time inhibits his productive role in society.

Drugs should be servants, not masters. They become masters when
they dominate an individual’s existence or impair his faculties. To the
extent that any drug, including alcohol, carries with it risks to the
well-being of the user and seriously undermines his effectiveness in
the society, that drug becomes, a matter of concern for public policy.

An essential step in the process of policy-formation is a deter-
mination of the circumstances under which use of any given drug
poses such risks. For some drugs, the risks may be so great that
all permissible measures should be taken to eliminate use. For other
drugs, such risks may be present only under certain specific circum-
stances, in which case society may defer to responsible individual
choice on the matter of recreational use but take appropriate steps
to minimize the incidence and consequences of dysfunctional use. In
our Report next year, for which studies are already underway, we
will consider from this perspective the whole range of drugs now used
for non-medical purposes.

A Social Control Policy for Marihuana

In formulating a marihuana policy, our strongest concern is with
irresponsible use, whether it be too often, too much, indiscriminate, or
under improper circumstances. The excessive or indiscriminate use of

128

any drug is a serious social concern; and this is particularly true of
marihuana since we still know very little about the effects of long-
term, heavy use. We have little doubt that the substantial majority
of users, under any social control policy, including the existing system,
do not and would not engage in irresponsible behavior.

In identifying the appropriate social control policy for marihuana,
we have found it helpful to consider the following policy options :

I Approval of Use.

II Elimination of Use.

III Discouragement of Use.

IV Neutrality Toward Use.

APPROVAL OF USE

Society should not approve or encourage the recreational use of
any drug, in public or private. Any semblance of encouragement en-
hances the possibility of abuse and removes, from a psychological
standpoint, an effective support of individual restraint.

For example, so long as this society (not only the government, but
other institutions and mass advertising as well) in effect approved of
the use of tobacco, the growing medical consensus about the dangers of
excessive use did not make a significant impression on individual
judgment. With the Surgeon Generaks Report on Tobacco in 1964,
Smoking and Health , a very real change has occurred in the way
society now thinks about cigarettes.

The institutions of society definitely add their influences to the
variety of social pressures which persuade individuals to use any
kind of drugs. Rational social policy should seek to minimize such
social pressures, whether they come from peers, from the media, from
social custom, or from the user's sense of inadequacy. Official approval
would inevitably encourage some people to use the drug who would
not otherwise do so, and would also increase the incidence of heavy or
otherwise irresponsible use and its complications. On this basis we
reject policy option number one, approval of use.

ELIMINATION OF USE

For a half-century, official social policy has been not only to dis-
courage use but to eliminate it (option number two) . With the princi-
pal responsibility for this policy assigned to law enforcement, its
implementation reached its zenith in the late 1950?s and early 1960?s
when marihuana-related offenses were punishable by long periods of
incarceration. This policy grew out of a distorted and greatly exag-
gerated concept of the drug's ordinary effects upon the individual
and the society. On the basis of information then available, marihuana

129

was not adequately distinguished from other problem drugs and was
assumed to be as harmful as the others.

The increased incidence of use, intensive scientific reevaluation, and
the spread of use to the middle and upper socioeconomic groups have
brought about the informal adoption of a modified social policy. On
the basis of our opinion surveys and our empirical studies of law
enforcement behavior, we are convinced that officialdom and the public
are no longer as punitive toward marihuana use as they once were.

Now there exists a more realistic estimate of the actual social impact
of marihuana use. School and university administrators are seldom
able to prevent the use of marihuana by their students and personnel
and are increasingly reluctant to take disciplinary action against users.
Within the criminal justice system, there has been a marked decline
in the severity of the response to offenders charged with possession of
marihuana.

In our survey of state enforcement activities, only 11% of all mari-
huana arrests resulted from active investigative activity, and most of
those were in sale situations. For the most part, marihuana enforce-
ment is a haphazard process ; arrests occur on the street, in a park, in
a car, or as a result of a phone call. Among those arrested, approxi-
mately 50% of the adults and 70% of the juveniles are not processed
through the system; their cases are dismissed by the police, by the
prosecutors or by the courts. Ultimately less than 6% of all those
apprehended are incarcerated, and very few of these sentences are for
possession of small amounts for personal use.

In the law enforcement community, the major concern is no longer
marihuana but the tendency of some users to engage in other irrespon-
sible activity, particularly the use of more dangerous drugs. Official
sentiment now seems to be a desire to contain use of the drug as well
as the drug subculture, and to minimize its spread to the rest of the
youth population. Law enforcement policy, both at the Federal and
State levels, implicitly recognizes that elimination is impossible at
this time.

The active attempt to suppress all marihuana use has been replaced
by an effort to keep it within reasonable bounds. Yet because this
policy still reflects a view that marihuana smoking is itself destructive
enough to justify punitive action against the user, we believe it is an
inappropriate social response.

Marihuana’s relative potential for harm to the vast majority of
individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a
social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.
This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior ex-
hibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of
existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent
with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination
of use is unattainable.

130

In the case of experimental or intermittent use of marihuana, there
is room for individual judgment. Some members of our society believe
the decision to use marihuana is an immoral decision. However, even
during Prohibition, when many people were concerned about the evils
associated with excessive use of alcohol, possession for personal use
was never outlawed federally and was made illegal in only five States.

Indeed, we suspect that the moral contempt in which some of our
citizens hold the marihuana user is related to other behavior or other
attitudes assumed to be associated with use of the drug. All of our
data suggest that the moral views of the overwhelming majority of
marihuana users are in general accord with those of the larger society.

Having previously rejected the approval policy (option number
one), we now reject the eliminationist policy (option number two).
This policy, if taken seriously, would require a great increase in man-
power and resources in order to eliminate the use of a drug which
simply does not warrant that kind of attention.

DISCOURAGEMENT OR NEUTRALITY

The unresolved question is whether society should try to dissuade
its members from using marihuana or should defer entirely to individ-
ual judgment in the matter, remaining benignly neutral. We must
choose between policies of discouragement (number three) and neu-
trality (number four). This choice is a difficult one and forces us to
consider the limitations of our knowledge and the dynamics of social
change. A number of considerations, none of which is conclusive by
itself, point at the present time toward a discouragement policy. We
will discuss each one of them separately.

1. User Preference Is Still Ambiguous

Alcohol and tobacco have long been desired by large numbers within
our society and their use is deeply ingrained in the American culture.
Marihuana, on the other hand, has only recently achieved a significant
foothold in the American experience, and it is still essentially used
more by young people. Again, the unknown factor here is whether the
sudden attraction to marihuana derives from its psychoactive virtues
or from its symbolic status.

Throughout this Commission’s deliberations there was a recurring
awareness of the posibility that marihuana use may be a fad which,
if not institutionalized, will recede substantially in time. Present data
suggest that this is the case, and we do not hesitate to say that we
would prefer that outcome. To the extent that conditions permit,
society is well advised to minimize the number of drugs which may
cause significant problems. By focusing our attention on fewer rather
than more drugs, we may be better able to foster responsible use and
diminish the consequences of irresponsible use.

131

The more prudent course seems to be to retain a social policy op-
posed to use, attempting to discourage use while at the same time
seeking to deemphasize the issue. Such a policy leaves us with more
options available when more definitive knowledge of the consequences
of heavy and prolonged marihuana use becomes available.

2. Continuing Scientific Uncertainty Precludes Finality

In 1933 when Prohibition was repealed, society was cognizant of the
effects of alcohol as a drug and the adverse consequences of abuse. But,
because so many people wished to use the drug, policy-makers chose
to run the risk of individual indiscretion and decided to abandon the
abstentionist policy. There are many today who feel that if the social
impact of alcohol use had then been more fully understood, a policy of
discouragement rather than neutrality would have been adopted to
minimize the negative aspects of alcohol use.

Misunderstanding also played an important part when the national
government adopted an eliminationist marihuana policy in 1937. The
policy-makers knew very little about the effects or social impact of the
drug; many of their hypotheses were speculative and, in large meas-
ure, incorrect.

Nevertheless, the argument that misinformation in 1937 automati-
cally compels complete reversal of the action taken at that time is
neither reasonable nor logical. While continuing concern about the ef-
fects of heavy, chronic use is not sufficient reason to maintain an overly
harsh public policy, it is still a significant argument for choosing offi-
cial discouragement in preference to official neutrality.

3. Society's Value System Is In a State of Transition

As discussed in Chapter I, two central influences in contemporary
American life are the individual search for meaning within the con-
text of an increasingly depersonalized society, and the collective search
for enduring American values. In Chapter IV, we noted that society’s
present ambivalent response to marihuana use reflects these
uncertainties.

For the reasons discussed in the previous Chapters, a sudden aban-
donment of an official policy of elimination in favor of one of neutral-
ity toward marihuana would have a profound reverberating impact on
social attitudes far beyond the one issue of marihuana use. We believe
that society must have time to consider its image of the future. We
believe that adoption of a discouragement policy toward marihuana at
this time would facilitate such a reappraisal while official neutrality,
under present circumstances, would impede it.

4. Public Opinion Presently Opposes Marihuana Use

For whatever reasons, a substantial majority of the American pub-
lic opposes the use of marihuana, and would prefer that their fellow

132

citizens abstain from using it. In the National Survey. 64% of the
adult public agreed with the statement that “using marihuana is
morally offensive^ (40% felt the same way about alcohol).

Although this majority opinion is not by any means conclusive, it
cannot be ignored. TTe are well aware of the skepticism with which
marihuana user, and those sympathetic to their wishes, view the policy-
making process; and we are particularly concerned about the indif-
ference to or disrespect for law manifested by many citizens and
particularly the youth.

However, we are also apprehensive about the impact of a major
change in social policy on that larger segment of our population which
supports the implications of the existing social policy. They, too, might
lose respect for a policy-making establishment which appeared to bend
so easily to the wishes of a “lawless*' and highly vocal minority.

This concern for minimizing cultural dislocation must, of course,
be weighed against the relative importance of contrary arguments. For
example, in the case of desegregation in the South, and now in the
North, culture shock had to be accepted in the light of the fundamental
precept at issue. In the case of marihuana, there is no fundamental
principle supporting the use of the drug, and society is not compelled
to approve or be neutral toward it. The opinion of the majority is en-
titled to greater weight.

Looking again to the experience with Prohibition, when an absten-
tionist policy for alcohol was adopted on the national level in 1918, its
proponents were not blind to the vociferous opposition of a substantial
minority of the people. By the late 1920's and early 1930's, the ambi-
valence of public opinion toward alcohol use and the unwillingness of
large numbers of people to comply with the new social policy compelled
reversal of that policy. Even many of its former supporters ac-
knowledged its futility.

TTith marihuana, however, the prevailing policy of eliminating use
had never been opposed to any significant degree until the mid-1960*s.
Unlike the prohibition of alcohol, which had been the subject of public
debate off and on for 60 years before it was adopted, present mari-
huana policy has not until now engaged the public opinion process,
some 50 years after it first began to be used. Majority sentiment does
not appear to be as flexible as it was with alcohol.

5. Neutrality Is Not Philosophically Compelled

Much of what was stated above bespeaks an acute awareness by the
Commission of the subtleties of the collective consciousness of the
American people, as shown in the National Survey. There is a legit-
imate concern about what the majority of the non-using population
thinks about marihuana use and what the drug represents in the public
mind. The question is appropriately asked if we are suggesting that

133

the majority in a free society may impose its will on an unwilling
minority even though, as it is claimed, uncertainty, speculation, and a
large degree of misinformation form the basis of the predominant
opinion. If we have nothing more substantial than this, the argument
goes, society should remain neutral.

To deal with this contention, one must distinguish between ends
and means. Policy-makers must choose their objectives wdth a sensi-
tivity toward the entire social fabric and a vision of the good society.
In such a decision, the general public attitude is a significant con-
sideration. The preferred outcome in a democratic society cannot be
that of the policy-makers alone ; it must be that of an informed public.
Accordingly, the policy-maker must consider the dynamic relationship
between perception and reality in the public mind. Is the public con-
sensus based on a real awareness of the facts ? Does the public really
understand what is at stake ? Given the best evidence available, would
the public consensus remain the same ?

Assuming that dominant opinion opposes marihuana use, the philo-
sophical issue is raised not by the goal but by how it is implemented.
At this point, the interests of the unwilling become important. For
example, the family unit and the institution of marriage are preferred
means of group-living and child-rearing in our society. As a society,
we are not neutral. We officially encourage matrimony by giving
married couples favorable tax treatment ; but we do not compel people
to get married. If it should become public policy to try to reduce the
birth rate, it is unlikely that there will be laws to punish those who
exceed the preferred family size, although we may again utilize
disincentives through the tax system. Similarly, this Commission be-
lieves society should continue actively to discourage people from using
marihuana, and any philosophical limitation is relevant to the means
employed, not to the goal itself.

FOE THESE REASONS, WE RECOMMEND TO THE PUB-
LIC AND ITS POLICY-MAKERS A SOCIAL CONTROL POL-
ICY SEEKING TO DISCOURAGE MARIHUANA USE,
WHILE CONCENTRATING PRIMARILY ON THE PREVEN-
TION OF HEAVY AND VERY HEAVY USE.

We emphasize that this is a policy for today and the immediate
future ; we do not presume to suggest that this policy embodies eternal
truth. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that our successor policy
planners, at an appropriate time in the future, review the following
factors to determine whether an altered social policy is in order : the
state of public opinion, the extent to which members of the society
continue to use the drug, the developing scientific knowledge about

134

the effects and social impact of use of the drug, and the evolving social
attitude toward the place of recreation and leisure in a work-oriented
society. In our second Report next year, we will carefully review our
findings to see if our perceptions have changed or if society has
changed at that time.

Implementing The Discouragement Policy

Choice of this social control policy does not automatically dictate
any particular legal implementation. As we noted in Chapter I, there
is a disturbing tendency among participants in the marihuana debate
to assume that a given statement of the drug’s effects, its number of
users or its social impact compels a particular statutory scheme.

Law does not operate in a social vacuum, and it is only one of the
institutional mechanisms which society can utilize to implement its
policies. Consequently, the evaluation of alternative legal approaches
demands not only logic but also a delicate assessment of the mutual
relationship between the law and other institutions of social control,
such as the church, the family and the school.

THE ROLE OF LAW IN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL CONTROL

Social control is most effectively guaranteed by the exercise of indi-
vidual self-discipline. Elementary social psychology teaches us that
restraint generated within is infinitely more effective and tenacious
than restraint imposed from without.

One of the participants at our “Central Influences” Seminar
observed :

Wlien people grow up into a society, the principal aim is to inter-
nalize drives — that is, I assume they come up with certain drives
which can be satisfied in many ways and you’re trying to internalize
ways of satisfying those drives which will be compatible with life
in a community and also satisfying to the individual. The external
restraints can only complement this, they cannot possibly substitute
for it.

The supplemental effect of external restraints, particularly legal
restraints, must also be weighed against the nature of the control
sought. It was put this way at our Seminar :

Think of the social welfare function as a mountain — the hill of the
Lords really. Large parts of it are something of a plateau ; that is
you can be all sorts of places on it and be safe. You don’t have to
maximize. This is an economist’s fallacy. You can have all sorts of

135

456-964 0 - 72 - 10

variations, you can be Socialists, Capitalists, Mormons, Adventists
and get away with it — even Liberals. But there are cliffs, and you
can fall off of them. This is what we are worrying about today. We
are nervous about these cliffs.

The “no-no’s” — as the kids call them — are the fences on these cliffs.
That is, we have set up taboos and say there’s a cliff there. Now one
of the problems socially is that we set up “no-no’s” where there are
no cliffs. There are ho cliffs and people jump over these [fences] and
they say, “No cliffs! See no cliffs !” [Then, over other fences — and]
chop -chop -chop -crash ! See, it’s just as dangerous to set up fences
without any cliffs as not have fences where there are cliffs.

To this functional consideration of external restraint, we must also
add the philosophical faith in the responsible exercise of individual
judgment which is the essence of a free society. To illustrate, a prefer-
ence for individual productivity underlies this society’s opposition to
indiscriminate drug use ; the fact that so few of the 24 million Ameri-
cans who have tried marihuana use it, or have used it, irresponsibly,
testifies to the extent to which they have internalized that value.

The hypothesis that widespread irresponsibility would attend freer
availability of marihuana suggests not that a restrictive policy is in
order but rather that a basic premise of our free society is in doubt. We
note that the escalation thesis, used as an argument against marihuana
rather than as a tool for understanding individual behavior, is really
a manifestation of skepticism about individual vulnerabilities. For ex-
ample, one-half of the public agreed with the statement that “if mari-
huana were made legal, it would make drug addicts out of ordinary
people.”

At the same time, we do feel that the threat of excessive use is most
potent with the young. In fact, we think all drug use should continue
to be discouraged among the young, because of possible adverse effects
on psychological development and because of the lesser ability of this
part of the population to discriminate between limited and excessive
use.

Social policy implementation in this regard is extraordinarily dif-
ficult. For example, although existing social policies toward tobacco,
alcohol and marihuana alike oppose their use by the young, those
policies are far from being fully effective. F or example :

Tobacco

The National Survey (1971) indicates that of young people age
12-to-l7,

• 50 % have smoked at one time or another ;

• 15% smoke now; and

• At least 8% smoke at least a half a pack a day.

136

In a 1970 sample of smoking habits in the 12-to-18 population con-
ducted for the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, it was
found that :

• 18.5% of the boys and 11.9% of the girls were regular smokers;

and

• About 8% of the boys and 5% of the girls smoked more than a
half a pack a day.

Alcohol

The National Survey also ascertained the drinking pattern during
the previous month of young people aged 12-to-17, finding that :

• At least 23% had used beer during that month, at least 14% had
used wine and at least 12% had used hard liquor ; and

• 6% had used beer five or more days during the month, 3% had
used wine five or more days, and 3% had used hard liquor five or
more days.

Marihuana

Of the 12-to-l7 population, the Survey found that :

• 15% of this population had tried marihuana :

• At least 6% still use it ; and

• Less than 1% use it once a day or more

The inclination of so many young people to experiment with drugs
is a reflection of a so-called successful socialization process on one
hand, and of society's ambivalence to the use of drugs on the other.
This entire matter will occupy much of our attention in the coming
year, but it is essential that we make a few anticipatory comments now.

This nation tries very had to instill in its children independence,
curosity and a healthy self-assurance. These qualities guarantee a
dynamic, progressive society. Where drugs are concerned, how-
ever, we have relied generally on authoritarianism and on obedience.
Drug education has generally been characterized by overemphasis of
scare tactics. Some segments of the population have been reluctant to
inform for fear of arousing curiosity in young minds. Where drugs
are concerned, young people are simply supposed to nod and obey.

This society has always been and continues to be ambivalent about
the non-medical (in the strict sense) use of drugs. And this ambiva-
Jence does not escape our children. If we can come to grips with this
issue, we might convince our youth that the curiosity that is en-
couraged in other aspects of our culture is undesirable where drugs are
concerned.

The law is at best a highly imperfect reflection of drug policy. The
laws proscribing sale of tobacco to minors are largely ignored. Pro-
hibitions of sale of alcohol to minors are enforced sporadically. As to
marihuana, there are areas throughout this nation where possession
laws are not enforced at all. In other sections, such proscriptions are
strictly enforced, with no apparent decrease in marihuana use.

137

As a guiding doctrine for parents and children, the law is certainly
confusing when it imposes widely varying punishments in different
states, and even in different courts of the same state, all for use of the
same substance, marihuana. That marihuana use can be treated as a
petty offense in one state and a felony in another is illogical and con-
fusing to even the most sincere of parents.

The law is simply too blunt an instrument to manifest the subtle
distinctions we draw between the motivations and the circumstances of
use. At the same time, legal status carries a certain weight of its own,
and other institutions must take account of the law in performing
their functions.

In legally implementing our recommended social policy, we seek
to maximize the ability of our schools, churches and families to be
open and honest in discussing all drugs, including marihuana. The law
must assist, not impede. In this respect, we note with concern the
counterproductive tendency in our society to seek simple solutions
to complex problems. Since the statutory law is a simple tool, the ten-
dency in our society to look to the law for social control is particularly
strong.

We have discussed the four basic social policy objectives of elimi-
nation, discouragement, neutrality and approval of marihuana use
and have selected discouragement of use, with emphasis on prevention
of heavy and very heavy use, as our generalized aim. We have con-
sidered three legal responses, each with a wide range of alternatives :

1. Total Prohibition.

2. Partial Prohibition.

3. Regulation.

TOTAL PROHIBITION

The distinctive feature of a total prohibition scheme is that all
marihuana-related behavior is prohibited by law. Under the total
prohibition response now in force in every state and at the federal level,
cultivation, importation, sale, gift or other transfer, and possession
are all prohibited acts. In 11 states and the District of Columbia, simply
being present knowingly in a place where marihuana is present is also
prohibited ; and many states prohibit the possession of pipes or other
smoking paraphernalia. For our purposes, the key feature of the
total prohibition approach is that even possession of a small amount
in the home for personal use is prohibited by criminal law.

From the very inception of marihuana control legislation, this nation
has utilized a policy of a total prohibition, far more comprehensive
than the restrictions established during the prohibition of alcohol.

Until recent years, society was operating under an eliminationist
policy. The exaggerated beliefs about the drug’s effects, social impact,
and user population virtually dictated this legal approach. During
this entire period, total prohibition was sought through the use of

138

heavier and heavier penalties until even first-time possession was a
felony in every jurisdiction, and second possession offenses generally
received a mandatory minimum sentence without parole or probation.
Yet the last few years have seen society little by little abandoning
the eliminationist policy in favor of a containment policy.

Under the total prohibition umbrella, this containment policy has
been implemented by a unique patchwork of legislation, informal
prosecutorial policy and judicial practice. Possession is now almost
everywhere a misdemeanor. Although some term of incarceration re-
mains as a penalty for possessors, it is generally not meted out to young
first offenders or to possessors of small amounts. Instead, most such
offenders are dismissed or informally diverted to agencies outside the
criminal system by those within the system who are trying to help them
avoid the stigma of a criminal record.

Offenders who are processed within the criminal justice system
generally receive fines and/or probation. In many jurisdictions, en-
forcement officials make little or no effort to enforce possession pro-
scriptions, concentrating instead on major trafficking. Possessors are
generally arrested only when they are indiscreet or when marihuana
is found incident to questioning or apprehension resulting from some
other violation. From our surveys, state and federal, we have found
that only minimal effort is made to investigate marihuana possession
cases.

Such a tendency is a reflection of the adoption of a containment
policy. By acting only when marihuana appears above ground, enforce-
ment officials are helping to keep its use underground. The shift away
from the elimination policy has been matched by a similar shift in
legal implementation, but the distinctive feature of the total prohibi-
tion scheme still remains : all marihuana-related behavior, including
possession for personal use within the home, is prohibited by criminal
law.

Is such a response an appropriate technique for achieving the social
control policy we outlined above ? The key question for our purposes is
whether total criminal prohibition is the most suitable or effective way
to discourage use and whether it facilitates or inhibits a concentration
on the reduction and treatment of irresponsible use. We are convinced
that total prohibition frustrates both of these objectives for the
following reasons.

1. Application of the Criminal Law to Private Possession Is
Philosophically Inappropriate

With possession and use of marihuana, we are dealing with a form
of behavior which occurs generally in private where a person possesses
the drug for his own use. The social impact of this conduct is indirect,
arising primarily in cases of heavy or otherwise irresponsible use and

139

from the drug’s symbolic aspects. We do not take the absolutist posi-
tion that society is philosophically forbidden from criminalizing any
kind of “private” behavior. The phrase “victimless crimes,” like “pub-
lic health hazard,” has become a rhetorical excuse for avoiding basic
social policy issues. We have chosen a discouragement policy on the
basis of our evaluation of the actual and potential individual and
social impact of marihuana use. Only now that we have done so can we
accord appropriate weight to the nation’s philosophical preference for
individual privacy.

On the basis of this evaluation we believe that the criminal law
is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort
to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the
behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential
harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the
criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only
with the greatest reluctance.

2. Application of the Criminal Law Is Constitutionally Suspect

The preference for individual privacy reflected in the debate over
the philosophical limitations on the criminal law is also manifested in
our constitutional jurisprudence. Although no court, to our knowledge,
has held that government may not prohibit private possession of
marihuana, two overlapping constitutional traditions do have impor-
tant public policy implications in this area.

The first revolves around the concept that in a free society, the
legislature may act only for public purposes. The “police powers” of
the states extend only to the “public health, safety and morals.”
In the period of our history when the people most feared interference
with their rights by the government, it was generally accepted that this
broad power had an inherent limitation. For example, early prohibi-
tions of alcohol possession were declared unconstitutional on the basis
of reasoning such as that employed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky
in 1915 in the case of C ommonivealth v. Campbell:

It is not within the competency of government to invade the privacy
of the citizen’s life and to regulate his conduct in matters in which
he alone is concerned, or to prohibit him any liberty the exercise
of which will not directly injure society.

Noting that the defendant was “not charged with having the liquor in
his possession for the purpose of selling it, or even giving it to another,”
and that “ownership and possession cannot be denied when that owner-
ship and possession is not in itself injurious to the public,” the
Kentucky court concluded that :

The right to use liquor for one’s own comfort, if they use it without
direct injury to the public, is one of the citizen’s natural and in-

140

alienable rights We hold that the police power — vague and wide

and undefined as it is — has limits. . . .

Even the perceived dangers of opium were not enough to convince
some members of the judiciary that the government could prohibit
possession. It is historically instructive to consider these words, penned
in 1890, by Judge Scott in Ah Lira v Territory :

I make no question but that the habit of smoking opium may be
repulsive and degrading. That its effect would be to shatter the
nerves and destroy the intellect ; and that it may tend to the increase
of the pauperism and crime. But there is a vast difference between
the commission of a single act, and a confirmed habit. There is a
distinction to be recognized between the use and abuse of any article
or substance. ... If this act must be held valid it is hard to conceive
of any legislative action affecting the personal conduct, or privileges
of the individual citizen, that must not be upheld. . . . The prohibited
act cannot affect the public in any way except through the primary
personal injury to the individual, if it occasions him any injury.
It looks like a new and extreme step under our government in the
field of legislation, if it really was passed for any of the purposes
upon which that character of legislation can be sustained, if at all.

As a matter of constitutional history, a second tradition, the applica-
tion of specific provisions in the Bill of Rights, has generally replaced
the notion of “inherent” limitations. The ultimate effect is virtually
the same, however. The Fourth Amendment’s proscription of “un-
reasonable searches and seizures” reflects a constitutional commitment
to the value of individual privacy. The importance of the Fourth
Amendment to the entire constitutional scheme was eloquently
described by Justice Brandeis in 1928 in the case of Olmstead v U.S.:

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions
favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the signifi-
cance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. They
knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfaction of life
are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans
in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.
They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let
alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued
by civilized men.

Although the F ourth Amendment is itself a procedural protection,
the value of privacy which it crystallizes is often read in conjunction
with other important values to set substantive limits on legislative
power. The Supreme Court, in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut ,
held in 1965 that Connecticut could not constitutionally prohibit the

141

use of 'birth control devices by married persons. Although the J ustices
did not agree completely on the reasons for their decision, Justice
Douglas stated in the opinion of the Court :

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone
of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.
And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives
rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve
its goals by means of having a maximum destructive impact upon
that relationship. Such a lawT cannot stand in light of the familiar
principle, so often applied by this Court, that a “governmental
purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject
to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep un-
necessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected free-
dom.” (citation omitted) Would we allow the police to search the
sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of
contraceptives ? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy
surrounding the marriage relationship.

Four years later, the Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Georgia , held that
even though obscenity is not “speech” protected by the First Amend-
ment, a state cannot constitutionally make private possession of obscene
material a crime. The Court’s reasoning is revealed in the following
language :

[The] right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their
social worth, (citation omitted), is fundamental to our free society. 1
Moreover, in the context of this case — a prosecution for mere pos-
session of printed or filmed matter in the privacy of a person’s own
home — that right takes on an added dimension. For also funda-
mental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances,
from unwanted governmental intrusions into one’s privacy . . .

While the judiciary is the governmental institution most directly
concerned with the protection of individual liberties, all policy-makers
have a responsbility to consider our constitutional heritage when fram- j
ing public policy. Regardless of wThether or not the courts would
overturn a prohibition of possession of marihuana for personal use
in the home, w^e are necessarily influenced by the high place tradi-
tionally occupied by the value of privacy in our constitutional scheme.

Accordingly, we believe that government must show a compelling
reason to justify invasion of the home in order to prevent personal
use of marihuana. We find little in marihuana’s effects or in its social
impact to support such a determination. Legislators enacting Pro-
hibition did not find such a compelling reason 40 years ago ; and we
do not find the situation any more compelling for marihuana today.

142

3. Total Prohibition Is Functionally Inappropriate

Apart from the philosophical and constitutional constraints out-
lined above, a total prohibition scheme carries with it significant
institutional costs. Yet it contributes very little to the achievement
of our social policy. In some ways it actually inhibits the success
of that policy.

The primary goals of a prudent marihuana social control policy
include preventing irresponsible use of the drug, attending to the
consequences of such use, and deemphasizing use in general. Yet an
absolute prohibition of possession and use inhibits the ability of other
institutions to contribute actively to these objectives. For example, the
possibility of criminal prosecution deters users who are experiencing
medical problems from seeking assistance for fear of bring attention
to themselves. In addition, the illegality of possession and use creates
difficulties in achieving an open, honest educational program, both
in the schools and in the home.

In terms of the social policy objective of discouraging use of the
drug, the legal system can assist that objective in three ways: first,
by deterring people from use ; second, by symbolizing social opposition
to use ; and finally, by cutting off supply of the drug.

The present illegal status of possession has not discouraged an esti-
mated 24 million people from trying marihuana or an estimated eight
million from continuing to use it. Our survey of the country’s state
prosecuting attorneys shows that 53% of them do not believe that
the law has more than a minimal deterrent effect in this regard.
Moreover, if the present trend toward passive enforcement of the
marihuana law continues, the law ultimately will deter only indiscreet
use, a result achieved as well by a partial prohibition scheme and with
a great deal more honesty and fairness.

A major attraction of the law has been its symbolic value. Yet,
society can symbolize its desire to discourage marihuana use in many
other, less restrictive ways. The warning labels on cigarette packages
serve this purpose, illustrating that even a regulatory scheme could
serve a discouragement policy. During Prohibition, the chosen statu-
tory implementation symbolized society’s opposition to the use of
intoxicating beverages; yet, most jurisdictions did not think it neces-
sary to superimpose a proscription of possession for personal use in
the home.

Finally, prohibiting possession for personal use has no substantive
relation to interdicting supply. A possession penalty may make en-
forcement of proscriptions against sale a little easier, but we believe
this benefit is of minimal importance in light of its costs.

The law enforcement goal repeatedly stated at both the federal
and state levels has been the elimination of supply and the interdiction
of trafficking. These avowed aims of law enforcement make sense,

143

On top of all this is the distinct impression among the youth that
some police may use the marihuana laws to arrest people they don’t
like for other reasons, whether it be their politics, their hair style
or their ethnic background. Whether or not such selectivity actually
exists, it is perceived to exist.

For -all these reasons, we believe that the possession offense is of little
functional benefit to the discouragement policy and carries heavy
social costs, not the least of which is disrespect and cynicism among
some of the young. Accordingly, even under our policy of discouraging
marihuana use, the better method is persuasion rather than prosecution.
Additionally, with the sale and use of more hazardous drugs on the
increase, and crimes of violence escalating, we do not believe that the
criminal justice system can afford the time and the costs of implement-
ing the marihuana possession laws. Since these laws are not mandatory
in terms of achieving the discouragement policy, law enforcement
should be allowed to do the job it is best able to do : handling supply
and distribution.

A criminal fine or similar penalty for possession has been suggested
as a means of alleviating some of the more glaring costs of a total
prohibitory approach yet still retaining the symbolic disapproval of
the criminal law. However, most of the objections raised above would
still pertain : the possibilities of invasion of personal privacy and selec-
tive enforcement of the law would continue ; possessors would still be
stigmatized as criminals, incurring the economic and social conse-
quences of involvement with the criminal law ; the symbolic status of
marihuana smoking as an anti-establishment act would be perpetuated.

On the other hand, a fine most likely would deter use no more than
does the present possibility of incarceration. It would continue to
impede treatment for heavy and very heavy use and would persist
in directing law enforcement away from the policy’s essential aim
which is to halt illegal traffic in the drug.

For all these reasons, we reject the total prohibition approach and
its variations.

REGULATION

Another general technique for implementing the recommended social
policy is regulation. The distinguishing feature of this technique is
that it institutionalizes the availability of -the drug. By establishing
a legitimate channel of supply and distribution, society can theoretic-
ally control the quality and potency of the product. The major alter-
natives within this approach lie in the variety of restraints which can
be imposed on consumption of the drug and on the informational
requirements to which its distribution can be subject.

We have given serious consideration to this set of alternatives;
however, we are unanimously of the opinion that such a scheme, no

146

matter how tightly it might restrict consumption, is presently un-
acceptable.

1. Adoption of a Regulatory Scheme at this Time Would Inevitably

Signify Approval of Use

In rejecting the total prohibition approach, we emphasized the
symbolic aspects. In essence, we do not believe prohibition of possession
for personal use is necessary to symbolize a social policy disapproving
the use. Theoretically, a tightly controlled regulatory scheme, with
limited distribution outlets, significant restraints on consumption, pro-
hibition of advertising and compulsory labeling, could possibly sym-
bolize such disapproval. Our regulatory policy toward tobacco is
beginning slowly to reflect a disapproval policy toward cigarette
smoking. Nonetheless, given the social and historical context of such
a major shift in legal policy toward marihuana, we are certain that
such a change would instead symbolize approval of use, or at least a
position of neutrality.

The Commission is concerned that even neutrality toward use as a
matter of policy could invest an otherwise transient phenomenon with
the status of an accepted behavior. If marihuana smoking were an
already ingrained part of our culture, this objection would be dis-
pelled. However, we do not believe that this is the case. We are inclined
to believe, instead, that the present interest in marihuana is transient
and will diminish in time of its own accord once the major symbolic
aspects of use are deemphasized, leaving among our population only a
relatively small coterie of users. With this possibility in mind, we are
hesitant to adopt either a policy of neutrality or a regulatory imple-
mentation of our discouragement policy. The law would inevitably
lose its discouragement character and would become even more
ambiguous in its rationale and its enforcement.

The effect of changing a social policy direction may be seen with
tobacco policy. In recent years, society has ostensibly adopted a policy
of discouraging cigarette smoking. This new policy has been imple-
mented primarily in the information area through prohibition of
some forms of advertising and through compulsory labeling. Yet,
the volume of cigarettes used increased last year. We believe that the
failure of the new policy results from the fact that it supplants one
that formerly approved use. This set of circumstances argues against
any policy which would be regarded as approval of use, including a
regulatory scheme. It is always extremely difficult to transform a pre-
viously acceptable behavior into a disapproved behavior.

2 . Adoption of a Regulatory Scheme Might Generate a Significant

Public Health Problem

We noted above that institutionalizing availability of the drug
would inevitably increase the incidence of use, even though that in-

147

cidence might otherwise decrease. Of greater concern is the prospect
that a larger incidence of use would result in a larger incidence of long-
term heavy and very heavy use of potent preparations.

There are now approximately 500,000 heavy users of less potent
preparations in this country, representing about 2% of those who ever
tried the drug. Even if the prevalence of heavy use remained the same
in relation to those who ever used, this at-risk population would
inevitably increase under a regulatory scheme. If the emotional dis-
turbances found in very heavy hashish users in other countries were
to occur in this country, the adverse social impact of marihuana use,
now slight, would increase substantially.

We have acknowledged that society, nonetheless, chose to run such
a risk in 1933, when Prohibition was repealed. But alcohol use was
already well-established in this society, and no alternative remained
other than a regulatory approach. In light of our suspicion that
interest in marihuana is largely transient, it would be imprudent to
run that risk for marihuana today.

3. Adoption of a Regulatory Scheme Would Exacerbate Social
Conflict and Frustrate a Deemphasis Policy

A significant segment of the public on both sides of the issue views
marihuana and its “legalization” in a highly symbolic way. Any
attempt to adopt a regulatory approach now would be counterproduc-
tive in this respect. The collision of values resulting from such a
dramatic shift of policy would maintain the debate at a highly emo-
tional level and would perpetuate the tendency to perceive marihuana
use as a symbol of the struggle between two conflicting philosophies.

4. Not Enough Is Known About Regulatory Models In This Area

Advocates of legalization of marihuana are often inclined to propose
a licensing scheme or an “alcohol model” without offering a specific
program of regulation taking all the variables into account. Responsi-
ble policy planning cannot be so cursory. Consequently, we have given
serious study to the many issues presented by such a scheme and to
the nation’s experience with other drug licensing schemes. On the
basis of our inquiry, we are convinced that such a step should not be
taken unless a realistic assessment of the efficacy of existing schemes
and their potential application to marihuana indicates it would be
successful. Such an assessment raises a number of disturbing
questions.

The regulatory approaches which this nation has used in the cases
of alcohol and tobacco have failed to accomplish two of their most
important objectives: the minimization of excessive use and the
limitation of accessibility to the young. Despite the warning and
restraints on distribution and consumption, more than 50 million

148

Americans smoke cigarettes regularly, and more than nine million
Americans are “problem” drinkers. We have previously cited data
indicating how many of our children begin habits which have been
legally forbidden to them. Since the young user and the chronic user
of marihuana are of primary concern to our public health officials, the
lack of success with alcohol and tobacco discourages an assumption
that the regulation of supply would minimize use by the younger
generation.

Another important purpose of a regulatory scheme is to channel
the product through a controlled system of supply and distribution.
In that way the quality and quantity of the substance can be regulated.
The efficacy of such a scheme as applied to marihuana is questionable.

Cannabis can be grown easily almost anywhere in the United States
with little or no human assistance. Even if a legitimate source of supply
were established, it is likely that many persons would choose to ignore
the legitimate source and grow their own, the purity of which would
not be in question. If such a practice were illegal, the necessity for
a concerted governmental eradication program is raised, which would
involve a monumental law enforcement effort. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, there are presently an estimated five
million acres of wild marihuana growing in this country and an
undetermined number of acres under cultivation.

Yet, if such a practice were not forbidden, the revenue-raising,
product-control and consumption-restriction features of a regulatory
scheme would be threatened. Instructive to note is the fact that inten-
sive regulation of alcoholic beverage production has not eliminated
illicit production. During 1970, in fact, 5,228 illegal stills were
destroyed by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the U.S.
Treasury and 5,279 persons were arrested. In 1971, 3,327 illegal stills
were destroyed and 5,512 persons were arrested.

Another disturbing question is raised by the issue of potency regula-
tion. Most advocates of legalization stipulate potency limitations asi
one feature of their scheme. Presumably they would limit the THC
content of the regulated product. This is not an easy undertaking.
Especially when cannabis is so easily grown and a black market is
so easily created, we are dubious about the success of a regulatory
scheme distributing only a product with low THC content. Again,
attention must be paid the prospect of increased hashish use under a
regulatory scheme ; merely stipulating potency control is not sufficient.
As we noted in Chapter II, the heavy, long-term use of hashish is a
source of major concern to the Commission from both private and
public health standpoints.

These are a few of the problems confronting the policy-maker if he
seeks to devise an effective regulatory system of distribution for what
is, in fact, a universally common plant. Our doubts about the efficacy

149

of existing regulatory schemes, together with an uncertainty about
the permanence of social interest in marihuana and the approval in-
evitably implied by adoption of such a scheme, all impel us to reject !
the regulatory approach as an appropriate implementation of a
discouragement policy at the present time.

Future policy planners might well come to a different conclusion
if further study of existing schemes suggests a feasible model; if
responsible use of the drug does indeed take root in our society; if
continuing scientific and medical research uncovers no long-term ill-
effects; if potency control appears feasible; and if the passage of
time and the adoption of a rational social policy sufficiently desym-
bolizes marihuana so that availability is not equated in the public mind
with approval.

PARTIAL PROHIBITION

The total prohibition scheme was rejected primarily because no
sufficiently compelling social reason, predicated on existing knowl-
edge, justifies intrusion by the criminal justice system into the private
lives of individuals who use marihuana. The Commission is of the

I unanimous opinion .that, marihuana, use is not such a grave problem
that individuals who smoke marihuana, and possess it for that purpose,
should be subject to criminal procedures. On the other hand, we have
also rejected the regulatory or legalization scheme because it would |
institutionalize availability of a drug which has uncertain long-term
effects and which may be of transient social interest.

Instead we recommend a partial prohibition scheme which we
feel has the following benefits :

• Symbolizing a continuing societal discouragement of use ;

• Facilitating the deemphasis of marihuana essential to answering ^
dispassionately so many of the unanswered questions ;

• Permitting a simultaneous medical, educational, religious, and
parental effort to concentrate on reducing irresponsible use and
remedying its consequences ;

| • Removing the criminal stigma and the threat of incarceration

from a widespread behavior (possession for personal use) which
does not warrant such treatment ;

• Relieving the law enforcement community of the responsibility
for enforcing a law of questionable utility, and one which they
cannot fully enforce, thereby allowing concentration on drug
trafficking and crimes against persons and property;

• Relieving the judicial calendar of a large volume of marihuana
possession cases which delay the processing of more serious
cases ; and

• Maximizing the flexibility of future public responses as new in-
formation comes to light.

No major change is required in existing law to achieve all of these
benefits. In general, we recommend only a decriminalization of pos- y
session of marihuana for personal use on both the state and federal
levels. The major features of the recommended scheme are that: pro-
duction and distribution of the drug would remain criminal activities
as would possession with intent to distribute commercially ; marihuana
would be contraband subject to confiscation in public places; and
criminal sanctions would be withdrawn from private use and pos-
session incident to such use, but, at the state level, fines would be
imposed for use in public.*

Specifically, we recommend the following statutory schemes.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL LAW

Under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control
Act of 1970, Congress provided the following scheme with respect
to marihuana, by which was meant only the natural plant and its
various parts, not the synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) :

• Cultivation, importation and exportation, and sale or distribution
for profit of marihuana are all felonies punishable by imprison-
ment for up to five years for a first offense and by up to 10 years for
a second offense (the available penalty is doubled for sale to a
minor).

• Possession of marihuana with intent to distribute is a felony
punishable by imprisonment for up to five years for the first
offense and by up to 10 years for a second offense.

• Possession of marihuana for personal use is a misdemeanor pun-
ishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine for first offense
and by up to two years in jail and a $2,000 fine for second offense
(expungement of criminal record is available for first offenders).

♦Commissioners Rogers, Congressman from Florida, and Carter, Congressman
from Kentucky, agree with the Commission’s selection of a discouragement
policy and .also agree that criminalization and incarceration of individuals for
possessing marihuana for their own use is neither necessary nor desirable as
a means of implementing that policy.

At the same time, both Commissioners feel that the contraband concept is
not a sufficiently strong expression of social disapprobation and would recom-
mend in addition a civil fine for possession of any amount of marihuana in
private or in public.

Both Commissioners feel that the civil fine clearly symbolizes societal dis-
approval and is a simple mechanism for law enforcement authorities to carry
out. If a person is found by a law enforcement officer to be in possession of mari-
huana, the officer would issue such person a summons to appear in court on a
fixed day. Although a warrant would not issue for search of a private residence
unless there were probable cause to believe a criminal offense was being com-
mitted, .a police officer legitimately present for other reasons could issue a civil
summons for violation of the “possession” proscription.

151

456-964 0-72-11

• Transfer of a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration
is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000
fine for first offense and by up to two years in jail and a $2,000 fine
for second offense (Congress singled out marihuana in this way
to allow misdemeanor treatment of casual transfers and permitted
first offender treatment, as allowed for possession for personal
use).

The Commission recommends only the following changes in federal
law:

• POSSESSION OF MARIHUANA FOR PERSONAL USE
WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE, BUT MARI-
HUANA POSSESSED IN PUBLIC WOULD REMAIN CON-
TRABAND SUBJECT TO SUMMARY SEIZURE AND
FORFEITURE.

• CASUAL DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF
MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION, OR INSIG-
NIFICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING PROFIT
WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

The Commission further recommends that federal law be supple-
mented to provide :

• A PLEA OF MARIHUANA INTOXICATION SHALL NOT
BE A DEFENSE TO ANY CRIMINAL ACT COMMITTED
UNDER ITS INFLUENCE, NOR SHALL PROOF OF SUCH
INTOXICATION CONSTITUTE A NEGATION OF SPECI-
FIC INTENT.

Commissioners Rogers and Carter believe that the legal system must be4
utilized directly to discourage the person from using marihuana rather than
being utilized only indirectly as in the case of contraband.

This civil fine would not be reflected in a police record, nor would it be con-
sidered a criminal act for purposes of future job consideration, either in the
private sector or for government service.

Agreeing with the other Commissioners that the casual transfers of mari-
huana for no profit should be treated in the same manner as possession for
one’s own use, Congressmen Rogers and Carter do not agree that it should
extend to transfers involving remuneration. They prefer the limiting language
of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 which
does not include the term “or insignificant remuneration not involving a profit.”
Apart from the addition of the civil fine to the contraband recommendation
in the respects set out above, Congressmen Carter and Rogers are in complete
agreement with the statutory recommendations set out in the Report.

Commissioner Ware concurs completely with the statements made by Con-
gressmen Rogers and Carter but wishes to reemphasize that the social policy
and legal scheme adopted is applicable only to marihuana and should not be
construed to embrace other psychoactive drugs. The policy set forth in this
Report, subject to the already noted comments of the two Congressional Com-
missioners, makes sense for marihuana on the basis of what is known about
the drug and in the absence of any conclusive showing which would verify

152

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE LAW

Under existing state marihuana laws, cultivation, distribution and
possession with intent to distribute are generally felonies and in most
states possession for personal use is a misdemeanor. The Commission
strongly recommends uniformity of state laws and, in this regard,
endorses the basic premise of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act,
drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws. The following are our recommendations for a uniform
statutory scheme for marihuana, by which we mean, as under existing
federal law, only the natural cannabis plant and its various parts,
not the synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) :

Existing Law

• CULTIVATION, SALE OR DISTRIBUTION FOR PROFIT
AND POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL WOULD
REMAIN FELONIES (ALTHOUGH WE DO RECOMMEND
UNIFORM PENALTIES).

some of the anecdotal law enforcement testimony heard by the Commission
regarding criminal behavior exhibited while under the influence of marihuana.

Commissioner Ware feels that some penalty short of criminalizing the user,
such as a civil fine or some type of intensive drug education, will act as a positive
deterrent toward minimizing the incidence of marihuana use especially among
the young. Further, he is opposed to the use of any drug for the express purpose
of getting intoxicated, and includes alcohol within this category. The Com-
missioner feels that what is needed is an internalizing of discipline among our
citizenry, with the legal system assisting this process through the use of
disincentives.

Commissioners Hughes, Senator from Iowa, and Javits, Senator from New
York, feel that the Commission has taken a major, highly laudable step in
recommending that the private use of marihuana be taken out of the criminal
justice system. They concur in its threshold judgment that overall social policy
regarding this drug should seek to discourage use, while concentrating primarily
on the prevention of irresponsible use. They disagree, however, with three specific
recommendations relating to the implementation of this discouragement policy.

First, they would eliminate entirely the contraband provision from the partial
prohibitory model adopted by the Commission. They want it eliminated first
because its legal implications are confusing and the subject of disagreement even
among lawyers. Whether or not possession of a given substance is criminal,
possession of material designated as contraband makes that possession unlawful.
Also, marihuana designated as contraband would be subject to government
search and seizure, even though the underlying possession is no longer criminal.
The provision — which does not apply to marihuana held for personal use within
the home — is considered by both Commissioners to be an unnecessary “symbol”
of the discouragement policy. It will not foster elimination of the misunder-
standing and mistrust which is a hallmark of our current marihuana policy.

Commissioner Hughes and Javits seek to eliminate it also because as a prac-
tical matter it serves no useful law enforcement purpose within the overall
partial prohibitory model. If marihuana held for personal use within the home
is not contraband, why should marihauna held for personal use within one’s

153

Private Activities

• POSSESSION IN PRIVATE OF MARIHUANA FOR PER-
SONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

• DISTRIBUTION IN PRIVATE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF
MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION OR INSIGNIF-
ICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING A PROFIT
WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

Public Activities

• POSSESSION IN PUBLIC OF ONE OUNCE OR UNDER
OF MARIHUANA WOULD NOT BE AN OFFENSE, BUT
THE MARIHUANA WOULD BE CONTRABAND SUB-
JECT TO SUMMARY SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE.

• POSSESSION IN PUBLIC OF MORE THAN ONE OUNCE
OF MARIHUANA WOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $100.

• DISTRIBUTION IN PUBLIC OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF
MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION OR INSIGNIF-
ICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING A PROFIT
WOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A
FINE OF $100.

• PUBLIC USE OF MARIHUANA WOULD BE A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $100.

• DISORDERLY CONDUCT ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC
USE OF OR INTOXICATION BY MARIHUANA WOULD
BE A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY UP TO 60 DAYS
IN JAIL, A FINE OF $100, OR BOTH.

automobile be contraband? The area of operation of the contraband provision
is extremely narrow. If one possesses more than one ounce of marihuana in
public, it may be seized without regard to the contraband doctrine since such
possession is a criminal violation.

Since the contraband provision does not apply to marihuana possession
and use in private, the only effective area covered by the contraband provision
is the area of possession in public of less than one ounce. The Commission has
chosen to remove the stigma of the criminal sanction in this kind of case. To
impose instead a contraband provision, which it is argued is in the nature of
a civil “in rem” seizure which does not operate against the person, is to cloud
the issue and to weaken the force of the basic decriminalization. A persuasive
justification simply has not been made.

Both Commissioners seek to eliminate it also because they believe that the
voice of the Commission should be loud and clear that the preservation of the
right of privacy is of paramount importance and cannot be casually jeopardized
in the pursuit of some vague public or law enforcement interest which has
not been defined and justified with clarity and precision.

The second area of disagreement with the Commission’s recommendations
concerns the casual distribution of marihuana and the not-for-profit sale. As
understood :

154

• OPERATING A VEHICLE OR DANGEROUS INSTRU-
MENT WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MARI-
HUANA WOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY UP TO ONE YEAR IN JAIL, A FINE OF UP TO $1,000,
OR BOTH, AND SUSPENSION OF A PERMIT TO OPER-
ATE SUCH A VEHICLE OR INSTRUMENT FOR UP TO
180 DAYS.

• A PLEA OF MARIHUANA INTOXICATION SHALL NOT
BE A DEFENSE TO ANY CRIMINAL ACT COMMITTED
UNDER ITS INFLUENCE NOR SHALL PROOF OF SUCH
INTOXICATION CONSTITUTE A NEGATION OF SPE-
CIFIC INTENT.

• A PERSON WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY LIABLE IN CIVIL
COURT FOR ANY DAMAGE TO PERSON OR PROPERTY
WHICH HE CAUSED WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE
OF THE DRUG.

DISCUSSION OF FEDERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommended federal approach is really a restatement of exist-
ing federal policy. F rom official testimony and record evaluation, we
know that the federal law enforcement authorities, principally the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Bureau
of Customs, do not concentrate their efforts on personal possession
cases. The avowed purpose of both Bureaus is to eliminate major
traffickers and sources of supply. For the most part, the federal

(1) The totally donative transfer is not subject to criminal penalty, regard-
less of where it takes place.

(2) The transfer of small amounts for insignificant remuneration not in-
volving a profit is not subject to criminal penalty (except if it is accomplished
in public, in which case it is subject to criminal sanction) , but

(3) The transfer of “large amounts” for “ significant ” remuneration not
involving a profit is subject to criminal penalty.

Footnote 4 on page 158 of the Report, the Commission refers to a Report
of The Senate Judiciary Committee on the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Preven-
tion and Control Act of 1970. In substance, it implies that within the meaning
of the Act, transfers o“f more than one or two marihuana cigarettes in return
for 50 cents or one dollar to cover cost are not intended to be covered as casual
transfers, but rather are to be treated as unlawful sales.

Commissioners Hughes and Javits feel that the Commission has failed to set
forth a clear standard which will adequately inform the public of their obliga-
tions under the law. The recommendation and its discussion in the Report are
confusing and fail to provide the individual with sufficient guidance to allow
him to act without having to dodge in and out of illegality. It also undermines
a basic, stated objective of the Commission i.e., to concentrate the weight of
the criminal sanction upon significant supply and distribution activities, rather
than upon casual consumption.

Moreover, proscribing even the most casual not-for-profit transfers when they
occur in public is, in their opinion, wrong. Such transfers are necessarily inci-

155

agencies have left possession enforcement to the states. Underlying
this approach is a need to maximize the use of enforcement resources
for major priorities and allow the states, in exercising their “police
powers,” to assume the responsibility for local activities, including
possession for personal use.

By withdrawing the criminal sanction from possession for personal
use we are, in effect, codifying official policy. In addition, such a scheme
follows the model chosen for alcohol in the Volstead Act, and also
revives the approach taken by Congress in the Drug Abuse Control
Amendments (DACA) of 1965. We are in agreement with the original
thrust of DACA, when Congress brought previously uncontrolled
drugs, LSD, barbiturates and amphetamines, under control but did
not assess criminal penalties for possession for personal use.

Instead, Congress placed on the prosecution the burden of proof that
the possession was for purposes of sale. Regardless of whether or not
Congress was wise in imposing a penalty in 1968 for possession for
personal use, a subject we will consider in our next Report, we think
the original DACA concept is enlightened where marihuana is
concerned.

At the same time, present federal law classifies marihuana as con-
traband, and this feature should be maintained. The contraband

dent to private possession and use. To hold that they should be subject to
criminal sanction is logically inconsistent with the Commission’s rationale and
recommendation on decriminalization of such private activities.

Instead, both Commissioners recommend that all not-for-profit sales be
excluded from the criminal sanction. It is fundamental that there be a clear
separation between the serious, commercial, profit-making-seller, or “pusher”
as he is known, and the individual who merely splits the cost of a reasonable
supply of the drug with his friends or acquaintances.

Thirdly, exception is taken to the retention of the criminal sanction on public
possession of more than one ounce. The individual who buys an ounce and a half
would be a criminal when he buys on the corner, when he puts it in his pocket,
when he gets in his car and drives home, when he is on his doorstep, but
not when he crosses the threshold of his home. Commission policy should direct
the attention of the law enforcement community to the person who sells the drug
for profit, and not to the person who uses the drug privately.

If an individual has more than a few ounces in his possession, and there is
probable cause to believe that he intends to sell it for profit, that activity is
already covered under the Commission’s recommendation that possession with
intent to sell is illegal. Therefore, there is no need to further proscribe simple
public possession.

All the component parts of the recommended policy of the Commission should
be consistent with its objective of non-interference with casual transfers and
possession and use which is essentially and fundamentally private and personal.

The contraband device, the not-for-profit sale, and public possession of some
reasonable amount which should be presumed to be necessarily incident to pri-
vate use should all be removed from the ambit of legal sanction. To do so would
be to strike down “symbols” of a public policy which had never been adequately
justified in the first instance. Such steps would in no way jeopardize the firm de-
termination of the Commission that the use of marihuana ought to be discouraged.

156

concept serves the discouragement policy in two ways : it assists the
removal of supply from the market and it symbolizes a continuing
societal opposition to use. Accordingly, if a person is found in posses-
sion of marihuana in public and the government is unable to prove
any intent to sell, it may nevertheless seize the marihuana and
confiscate it is contraband.

The contraband provision would apply only to possession in public
and would not extend to possession for personal use in the home.
During Prohibition, the Federal Government and most of the states
employed a similar statutory limitation. For example, the Volstead
Act provided that a private dwelling could not be searched “unless
it is being used for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. ...” 1

The impact of this contraband concept is that marihuana possessed
or found in public can be summarily seized by law enforcement officials
and forfeited to the state for subsequent destruction.2 The criminal
justice system is not involved in the process. The individual receives
no record of any kind; he simply loses the economic value of the
marihuana.3

With regard to the casual distribution of small amounts of mari-
huana for no remuneration or insignificant remuneration not involv-
ing a profit we are following the approach taken in the Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 which in essence
treats such casual transfers as the functional equivalent of posses-
sion. In doing so, Congress recognized that marihuana is generally

1 § 39. Unlawful possession of liquor or property designed for manufacture
thereof ; search warrants. It shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor or
property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violating this
chapter or which has been so used, and no property rights shall exist in any
such liquor or property. A search warrant may issue as provided in [sections 611
to 631 and 633 of Title 18] and such liquor, the containers thereof, and such
property so seized shall be subject to such disposition as the court may make
thereof. If it is found that such liquor or property was so unlawfully held or
possessed, or had been so unlawfully used, the liquor, and all property designed
for the unlawful manufacture of liquor, shall be destroyed, unless the court shall
otherwise order. No search warrant shall issue to search any private dwelling
occupied as such unless it is being used for unlawful sa^ of intoxicating liquor,
or unless it is in part used for some business purpose such as a store, shop,
saloon, restaurant, hotel, or boarding house. The term “private dwelling” shall
be construed to include the room or rooms used and occupied not transiently but
solely as a residence in an apartment house, hotel or boarding house. The prop-
erty seized on any such warrant shall not be taken from the officer seizing the
same on any writ of replevin or other like process. (Oct. 28, 1919, c. 85, Title II,
§ 25. 41 Stat. 315)

2 The federal and state provisions presently in force regarding the seizure
and forfeiture of an automobile transporting marihuana would no longer be
applicable. They would still remain in force for other controlled drugs classified
as contraband.

3 See the views of Commissioners Rogers, Carter, Ware, Hughes and Javits
expressed in the footnote on pages 151-156.

157

shared among friends and that not all people who distribute marihuana
are “pushers.”*

The accuracy of Congress’ appraisal is underscored by the National
Survey. When people who had used marihuana were asked how they
first obtained the drug, 61% of the adults and 76% of the youth re-
sponded that it had been given to them. Only 4% of the adults and
8% of the youth said that they had bought it. When asked who their
source had been, 67 % of the adults and 85 % of the youth responded
that it had been a friend, acquaintance or family member.

The close association between the concepts of casual transfer and
personal possession is also underscored by the fact that 56% of the
prosecutors in our survey thought that the present law did not deter
casual transfer at all or deterred it only minimally.

With regard to importation and exportation, we recommend no
change in existing law and make the following observations. First,
the United States must maintain its international standing and, as
a member of the community of nations, this country should do every-
thing in its power to restrict the exportation of marihuana to other
countries and to penalize such international traffic.

As to importation of marihuana, the most effective way to discourage
use is to cut off supply at the top of the pyramid. Recognizing that
most of the marihuana consumed in the United States comes from
abroad, we feel that the Bureau of Customs at the borders should have
all necessary authority to halt and interdict supplies intended for con-
sumption in this country. There has been a long-standing practice of
excepting ports and borders from procedural rules applying within
the United States. One example is that Customs officials are allowed
to search without the showing of probable cause, even though such a

*In considering this relationship, the Senate, in the Report of the Committee
on the Judiciary of the United States Senate regarding S. 3246 (a precursor bill
to the new Federal law ) stated :

The language “distributes a small amount of marihuana for no remunera-
tion or insignificant remuneration not involving a profit” as contained in section
501(c) (4) is intended to cover the type of situation where a college student
makes a quasi-donative transfer of one or two marihuana cigarettes and re-
ceives 50 cents or a dollar in exchange to cover the cost of the marihuana.
Transfers of larger quantities in exchange for larger amounts of money,
or transfers for profit, are not intended to be covered by this section, but rather
are to be covered by section 501(c) (2) which deals with unlawful distribution.
This language sketches a prototype situation which the Committee had in mind ;
however, the wording of the Federal Act and of our recommendations is not
intended to establish inflexible rules. The objective in both provisions is to dis-
tinguish between commercial sellers and casual distributors. Ultimately the
courts will have the responsibility of drawing this distinction according to the
evidence in individual cases. The recommended provision intentionally estab-
lishes a loose standard not tied to specific amounts of marihuana or money.

See also the views of Commissioners Rogers, Carter, Ware, Hughes and Javits
expressed in the footnote on pages 151-156.

158

showing is mandatory for searches conducted within the United
States. We can see a legitimate reason for continuing this policy.

DISCUSSION OF STATE RECOMMENDATIONS

The states have primary responsibility for enforcing the existing
proscriptions against possession for personal use. Their present efforts
are designed mainly to keep marihuana use contained and in private.
Such an enforcement policy is consistent with our social policy ap-
proach, and is an appropriate exercise of the states’ obligations to
maintain public order. So while we see no need for criminal sanctions
against possession for personal use or against casual transfers, we
recommend a number of provisions for confining marihuana use to the
home.

The first point is that even marihuana possessed for personal use
is subject to summary seizure and forfeiture if it is found in public.
This concept is now applicable under federal law which we commend
also to the states. In our view, the contraband feature symbolizes
the discouragement policy and will exert a major force in keeping use
private.

Another means of symbolizing the discouragement policy which has
been suggested is the imposition of a civil fine on those possessing
marihuana outside the home for personal use.* Under such an ap-
proach, a fine would be levied and processed outside the criminal jus-
tice system. Essentially, possession of marihuana would be the equiva-
lent of a traffic offense in those jurisdictions where such an offense is
not criminal.

Such a scheme would accomplish little more than that achieved
under a partial prohibition scheme. Warrants would presumably not
be issued for searches of private residences, and possession offenses
would be detected only by accident or if the offender uses the drug in
public. The more direct way to confront such behavior is a penalty
against public use.

A further problem with the civil fine approach lies in the area of
non-payment of the fine. With traffic tickets, or with civil fines levied
against industrial polluters, society can compel compliance by with-
drawing its permission to engage in regulated activity. For example,
it can revoke the motorists’ license to drive or the polluters’ license
to do business within the state. In short, the state has remedies beyond
the criminal law to achieve its policy goal. The same would not be true
for the marihuana user and enforceability of the statute would ulti-
mately require court action.

*See the views of Commissioners Rogers, Carter and Ware expressed in the
footnote on pages 151-153.

159

As we have suggested, a central feature of our statutory approach
at the state level would be a vigorously enforced prohibition of public
use. No intoxicant should be used in public, both because it may offend
others and because the user is risking irresponsible behavior if he
should be under its influence in public. Moreover, where marihuana
is concerned, continuing societal disapproval requires that the behavior
occur only in private if at all. Public use, under the proposed scheme,
would theref ore be punishable by a fine of $100.

We also recognize the need for some prophylactic measure for antici-
pating distribution, even though there may be no intent to sell for
profit. To this end, and in order to deter public use, possession and
transfer, we have drawn a line at one ounce of marihuana. Possession
in public of more than this amount would be punishable by a fine of
$100.

For these same reasons, we believe the states should prohibit all
transfers outside the home, whether or not for remuneration. A trans-
fer for profit would be a felony, as under present law. A casual trans-
fer of a small amount would be punishable by a fine of $100.

Taken together, the contraband feature, the proscriptions of public
use and public possession of more than an ounce (even if for personal
use) and the prohibition of public transfers will reflect the discourage-
ment policy underlying the entire scheme.

The remaining set of recommendations aims at irresponsible be-
havior under the influence of marihuana. Whatever the precise legal
scheme employed, these provisions should be included.

First, the “drunk and disorderly” statutes presently in force in the
states are useful tools for maintaining public order. We would sug-
gest similar statutes in the case of marihuana, punishing offenders by
up to 60 days in jail, a fine of $100, or both. Law enforcement authori-
ties must have a means to halt antisocial behavior exhibited incidental
to marihuana use.

The second aspect of irresponsible behavior is the operation of auto-
mobiles, other vehicles, or any potentially dangerous instrument while
under the influence of marihuana. Such behavior is gross negligence
in itself, risking harm to others unnecessarily. In addition .to penaliz-
ing a person who “drives under the influence” as a serious misdemean-
ant, we would impose absolute civil liability on anyone who harms the
person or property of another while under the influence of marihuana.

Finally, no one should be able to limit his criminal accountability
by alleging that he was under the influence of marihuana at the time of
the crime. Under both federal and state law, the defendant should not
be able to negate the mental element of “specific intent,” which some
offenses carry, by pleading that he was under the influence of mari-
huana and was therefore unable to have formed such an intent. Un-
like many users of heroin, the user of marihuana is not physically de-

160

pendent on the drug. The use of the drug is usually a matter of choice.
Although we believe on the basis of available evidence that there is no
causal connection between marihauna use and crime, we would under
no circumstances allow a person to escape the consequences of his
actions by hiding behind the cloak of marihuana use.

DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS

Having discussed our recommended scheme at the federal and state
levels, we think it useful to answer some objections we anticipate will
be raised. Possible objections are :

1. Partial prohibition is not a sufficient reflection of the discour-
agement policy.

2. Partial prohibition is logically inconsistent.

3. A possession penalty is necessary for effective enforcement of
sale proscriptions.

4. Partial prohibition won’t “work'’ for marihuana any more
than it did for alcohol.

5. A possession offense is essential as a device for detecting prob-
lem users.

6. Retention of a possession offense is required by our interna-
tional obligations.

7. A firm distinction should be drawn between less potent and
more potent preparations.

1 . The Partial Prohibition Approach Is a Sufficient Reflection of
the Discouragement Policy

To those who would argue that a criminal sanction against use is a
necessary implementation of an abstentionist policy, we need only re-
spond that this country has not generally operated on that assumption.
We would be astounded if any person who lived during the 1920’s was
not aware of a definite governmental policy opposed to the use of
alcohol. Yet, only -five states prohibited possession for personal use
during Prohibition. The failure of the 18th Amendment, the Volstead
Act and 43 state prohibition acts to criminalize private possession cer-
tainly did not signify official approval of or neutrality toward alcohol
use.

As we pointed out in Chapter I, our nation has not generally seen
fit to criminalize private drug- related behavior ; only in the narcotics
area was possession made a crime and marihuana was brought with-
in the narcotics framework because of unfounded assumptions about
its ill effects. We think it is time to correct that mistaken departure
from tradition with respect to marihuana. As during Prohibition, the
drug will remain contraband, and its distribution will be prohibited.

161

Even as late as 1965, an abstentionist drug policy was not thought to j
require prohibition for personal use. At that time, Congress enacted I
the Drug Abuse Control Amendments, bringing LSD, amphetamines
and barbiturates under federal control. National policy was clearly
opposed to use of the hallucinogens and the non-prescription use of
amphetamines and barbiturates, yet Congress did not impose a penalty
for possession. Whether or not Congress’ subsequent decision in 1968,
to impose such a penalty was appropriate is an issue we will cover in
our next Report after analyzing the individual drugs controlled. The
important point now is that such a penalty is not a necessary feature
of a discouragement policy for marihuana, regardless of its propriety
for other drugs.

2. The Partial Prohibition Approach Is Not Logically Inconsistent

It will be argued that a law which permits a person to acquire and
use marihuana but does not permit anyone to sell it to him for profit
is logically unsound. We do not agree. If we had recommended a social
policy of approval or neutrality toward use, partial prohibition would
indeed have been illogical. However, under a discouragement policy,
such a scheme is perfectly consistent.

Under partial prohibition, use is discouraged in three main ways.
First, law enforcement authorities will make a concerted effort to re-
duce the supply of the drug. If a person wishes to use marihuana, he
will have to seek out a person to sell it to him ; and if his seller is in
the business of distributing marihuana for profit, the seller is violating
the law.

Second, the user will have to confine his disapproved behavior to the
home. If he uses the drug in public, he has committed an offense;
if he possesses it in public, it may be summarily seized as contraband.

Third, continuing efforts will be made by educators, public health
officials, and official government spokesmen to discourage use. Real-
izing that educational efforts are not always successful, we would hope
for a sound program. In any event, the law should be an ancillary
rather than a focal consideration.

There is nothing theoretically inconsistent about a scheme which
merely withdraws the criminal sanction from a behavior which is
not immoral but which is disapproved. The individual is being allowed
to make his own choice. Hopefully, he will choose not to use marihuana.
If he chooses to do so, however, he will have to do so discreetly and in
private. Apart from its ultimate possession by the user, however, all
marihuana-related activity is prohibited. The drug is contraband from
its initial growth, through its harvest and distribution. It ceases to
be contraband only when possessed and used in the home.

162

► 3. Prohibition of All Possession Is Not Essential to Prohibition

of Sale

The other side of the “inconsistency” objection is the argument by
law enforcement officials that they cannot adequately enforce pro-
scriptions against sale without a possession penalty. We disagree.

[ We have already explained that enforcement of a possession offense to
some extent impedes the effort to reduce supply. Possession cases are
generally regarded in the law enforcement community and by judges
and prosecutors as “cheap” cases. Few seriously contend that prosecu-
tion of possessors reduces supply.

Some persons argue in response that the law should remain on the
books as a tool not against the possessor but against the seller. They
say that a possession offense is helpful in three ways. First, a prosecu-
tion can be used as a bargaining tool to encourage the possessor to
- reveal his source; this is called “turning an informant.” Second, the
police may know that a person is a seller, but may not be able to prove
either sale or intent to sell, so they can at least charge such suspected
sellers with simple possession.

Third, a corollary of the second argument is that the possession
offense provides a useful tool in the “plea bargaining” process. That
is, a seller may plead guilty to the lesser offense of possession, now
generally a misdemeanor, instead of running the risk of trial and
conviction of the more serious offense of sale, generally a felony. The
prosecution may accept such a “bargain’ if it is uncertain of the
strength of the case, to avoid delay in sentencing, to reduce judicial
backlog or in return for information from the defendant.

From an institutional standpoint, we do not find these arguments
persuasive. First, if a possession offense is on the books, possession is
a criminal activity. We oppose criminalizing conduct when its purpose
and intent is directed not toward that conduct but toward another
behavior.

In answer to the informant argument, the marihuana user (and
this may not be true of other drugs) is simply too low in the distribu-
tional chain to help very much. As indicated earlier, the National
Survey shows most users receive their marihuana from their friends
or acquaintances either as a gift or at cost. Barely is the time spent
on him or on his “source” a fruitful allocation of the law enforcement
official’s time. Also, it is institutionally improper to hold the criminal
sanction over a person to force him to talk, when we otherwise would
be unwilling to use that sanction.

As to the “lack of proof” and “plea bargaining” arguments, we
believe they challenge a fundamental tenet of our criminal justice
system. That is, under our law, a person is not guilty just because
the police think he is guilty; his offense must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt to a judge or jury. If a possession offense were not

163

| 456-964 0 - 72 - 12

on the books, the police would have to gather enough evidence to con-
vict the seller of sale or of possession with intent to sell, and the [
prosecution would have to convince the judge beyond a reasonable
doubt. The defendant, suspected seller or not, is entitled to due process
of law.

The “lack of proof” argument is nothing more than a plea for an
“easy out” when the police do not have enough evidence. This simply
represents an admission that law enforcement officials want a posses-
sion offense which they can apply selectively, to people whom they
think, but cannot prove, are sellers. Such a notion is inconsistent with
the basic premise of our system of equal treatment under the law. If
“simple” possession is not an offense for some, it is not an offense for
all. A “known seller” is entitled to the same rights as anyone else:
criminal conduct must be proved beyond -a reasonable doubt. We do not
favor coddling criminals. We do insist, as did the framers of the Con-
stitution, that suspected criminal behavior be proved.

4. That Partial Prohibition Did Not “Work” For Alcohol Doesn't
Mean It Won't For Marihuana

Prohibition failed to achieve its avowed purpose of eliminating the
use of intoxicating liquors from American life. Risking an over-
simplification, we think two reasons were essentially responsible for
this failure : the unwillingness of a substantial minority, and probably
a majority, of the American public to discard a habit deeply ingrained
in their lives ; and the inability of the law enforcement community to
eliminate the bootlegging traffic which catered to this continuing
demand.

As we have repeatedly noted, one of the reasons for adoption of a
partial prohibition approach is uncertainty about the extent to which
marihuana use is ingrained in American culture. Indeed, adoption of
partial prohibition is the best way to find out for sure. If the social
interest turns out to be only transient, this policy will prove partic-
ularly appropriate.

Similarly, an increase in marihuana use may be prevented by a
concerted effort to eliminate major trafficking, the scope of which
is presently only a small fraction of Prohibition bootlegging. We do
not pretend that supply of a plant so easily grown can be eliminated.
However, an intensive effort to eliminate commercial criminal enter-
prise should have some impact on the extent of use.

5. The Possession Offense Is Not Required as a Detection Device

In addition to their deterrent and symbolic functions, the drug pos-
session laws serve a third function not shared by most other criminal
laws. Like laws against public drunkenness, they facilitate societal i
detection of drug- dependent persons. Ideally, such persons, although

164

apprehended by law enforcement authorities, may be detained for
purposes of treatment and rehabilitation.

Whatever the merits of such an argument for the opiates and alcohol,
such an argument does not apply to marihuana. Only a very small per-
centage of marihuana users are drug- dependent or are in need of treat-
ment. Their dependence is generally upon multiple drug use, not on
marihuana. In any event, the existence of such a small population does
not justify retention of the possession offense as a detection device.

6. International Obligations Do Not Require Maintenance of a

Possession Penalty

Some have raised the possibility that removal of simple possession
criminal penalties would contravene this country’s obligations under
the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), to which it became
a signatory in March, 1967. We do not believe the provisions of that
Convention compel the criminalization of possession for personal use.

Nowhere in the Convention are its Parties expressly required to im-
pose criminal sanctions on possession for personal use. Article 4 re-
quires Parties to “take such legislative and administrative measures as
may be necessary .... to limit exclusively to medical and scientific
purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of,
trade in, use and possession of drugs.” Penal sanctions are not
necessarily included in this formulation.

Article 36, which deals specifically with penal provisions, requires
each party to adopt “such measures as will ensure” that the listed
activities, including possession, “shall be punishable offenses.” Some
have argued that this provision requires prohibition of personal use.

However, from a comprehensive study of the history of the Conven-
tion, the Commission has concluded that the word “possession” in
Article 36 refers not to possession for personal use, but to possession
as a link in illicit trafficking. This interpretation is bolstered also by
the failure to include “use” in Article 36 even though it has been
included in Article 4.

Finally, we must consider Article 33, which provides that “the
Parties shall not permit the possession of drugs except under legal
authority.” This Article also does not require the imposition of any
sanctions on possession for personal use. Experts consulted by the Com-
mission have indicated that this Article may, nevertheless, require
that the Parties to limit possession and use to medical and scientific
purposes. To affirmatively allow drugs to remain in the possession of
persons for non-medical use would in this viewT contravene Articles 4
and 33 to read together. From this perspective our international
obligations may require the classification of marihuana as contra-
band. For this reason, together with a desire to symbolize our dis-

165

couragement policy in a clear way, we have included the contraband
feature in our legal implementation scheme.

In conclusion, our reading of the Convention is that a Party may
legitimately decide to deal with non-medical use and possession of
marihuana through an educational program and similar approaches
designed to discourage use.

7. No Potency Distinction is Necessary at the Present Time

Following the approach taken in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970, w^e have drawn a line between
the natural cannabis plant and the synthetic tetrahydrocannabinols.
“Marihuana” is defined as any and all parts of the natural plant.
That we choose this approach for purposes of statutory implementa-
tion does not mean that we are unaware of the difference between the
less potent and more potent preparations of the natural plant.

As noted in Chapters II and III, the highest risk of cannabis use
to the individual and society arises from the very long-term, very
heavy use of potent preparations commonly called hashish. No such
pattern of use is known to exist in the United States today.

The predominant pattern of use in the United States is experimental
or intermittent use of less potent preparations of the drug. Even when
hashish is used, the predominant pattern remains the same. In addi-
tion, whatever the potency of the drug used, individuals tend to smoke
only the amount necessary to achieve the desired drug effect.

Given the prevailing patterns of use, the Commission does not
believe it is essential to distinguish by statute between less potent
and more potent forms of the natural plant. Reinforcing this judgment
are the procedural and practical problems attending an effort to do so.

If the criminal liability of an individual user is dependent on the
THC content of the substance, neither he nor the arresting officer will
know whether he has committed a crime until an accurate scientific
determination is made. Even if such accurate determinations were
feasible on a large scale, which is not now the case, such after-the-fact
liability is foreign to our criminal laws.

Under present circumstances, then, a statutory line based on potency
is neither necessary nor feasible. We emphasize also that any legal
distinction is an artificial reflection of the Commission’s major concern :
the heavy use of the drug over a long term. The most emphatic element
of official policy should be to discourage such use, especially of the
more potent preparations. Unfortunately precise legislative formula-
tions regarding the amount of the drug presumed to be for personal
use do not assist this effort at all. Whether it is lawful to possess one
ounce of hashish or a proportionate amount based on potency (for
example, one-fourth ounce), an individual prone to use the drug
heavily will do so. Society’s resources should be committed to the

166

task of reducing supply of the drug and persuading our citizens not to
use it. Expenditure of police time and financial resources in an attempt
to ascertain the THC content of every seized substance would make
little, if any, contribution to this effort.

A Final Comment

In this Chapter, we have carefully considered the spectrum of social
and legal policy alternatives. On the basis of our findings, discussed
in previous Chapters, we have concluded that society should seek to
discourage use, while concentrating its attention on the prevention and
L o treatment of heavy and very heavy use. The Commission feels that the
criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal use is socially
self ^defeating as a means of achieving this objective. We have at-
tempted to balance individual freedom on one hand and the obligation
of the state to consider the wider social good on the other. We believe
our recommended scheme will permit society to exercise its control and
influence in ways most useful and efficient, meanwhile reserving to the
individual American his sense of privacy, his sense of individuality,
and, within the context of an interacting and interdependent society,
his options to select his own life style, values, goals and opportunities.

The Commission sincerely hopes that the tone of cautious restraint
sounded in this Beport will be perpetuated in the debate which will
follow it. For those who feel we have not proceeded far enough, we
are reminded of Thomas J efferson’s advice to George Washington that
“Delay is preferable to error.” For those who argue we have gone too
far, we note Boscoe Pound’s statement, “The law must be stable, but it

^_4nust not stand still.” —

We have carefully analyzed the interrelationship between marihuana
the drug, marihuana use as a behavior, and marihuana as a social
problem. Becognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about
11 uana as a drn*>\ we have triedAo demythologize it. Viewing
} of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to
wlize it.

sidering the range of social concerns in contemporary America,
lana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high.

uld deemphasize marihuana as a problem. . . — -

The existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the indi-
vidual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug. To replace
it, we have attempted to design a suitable social policy, which we
believe is fair, cautious and attuned to the social realities of our time.

167

addendum

The previous Chapter recommended a social policy oriented toward
the discouragement of marihuana use and presented a set of proposals
for the legal implementation of that policy. In addition to these legal
recommendations for federal and state action, the Commission believes
certain other recommendations should be presented for action.

Ancillary Recommendations

These recommendations are presented in three categories : (1) legal
and law enforcement, (2) medical, and (3) other. Some of these
recommendations apply to other drugs as well and will be discussed
further in our second Report. However, we consider it useful to make
recommendations now so that policy planners can be informed of the
implications of what has been studied to date.

Foremost among the Commission’s conclusions is a need for con-
sistency between federal and state laws affecting marihuana distribu-
tion and use, and uniformity of marihuana laws among the states. The
administration of all marihuana laws must be mutally reenforcing so
that total governmental response to marihuana is both equitable and
understandable.

169

Legal and Law Enforcement Recommendations

I. Federal

EECOMMENDATION: FEDEEAL LAW ENFOECEMENT
AGENCIES, ESPECIALLY THE BUEEAU OF NAECOTICS
AND DANGEEOUS DEUGS AND THE BUEEAU OF CUS-
TOMS, SHOULD IMPEOYE THEIE STATISTICAL EEPOET-
ING SYSTEMS SO THAT POLICIES MAY BE PLANNED
AND EESOUECES ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF
ACCUEATE AND COMPEEHENSIVE INFOEMATION.

In an effort to obtain information relating to enforcement of the
marihuana laws including arrest, prosecution, sentencing and convic-
tion data, the Commission found that sufficient information was avail-
able about prosecution and court action, but not about the activities
of the law enforcement agencies. We were confronted by and large
with inadequate statistical information and little or no in-depth
evaluation.

The statistical reporting procedures of the Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs and the Bureau of Customs are not uniform, making
it extremely difficult to assess the effectiveness of the two principal
drug enforcement agencies of the Federal Government. The Bureau
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs keeps centralized files but the
Bureau of Customs maintains its files on a regional basis. In both
Bureaus, statistical information is kept only in its raw form ; that is,
number of arrests, number of seizures and so on. Very little analysis |
exists of the procedures leading to arrest, of the characteristics of per-
sons arrested, and of the law enforcement strategies involved in the
arrest. For law enforcement personnel to understand more fully how
they are carrying out their functions so that internal assessments
of particular policies can be made, sophisticated statistics must be
maintained.

Both the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Bureau
of Customs are aware of these problems. Both were extremely helpful
to the Commission and its research staff in seeking useful information
from the mass of raw statistics. However, the information from the
available statistics is incomplete and of limited utility for policy
planning purposes.

In support of this priority recommendation, Congress is urged to
provide additional and adequate funding for this area, at the same time
requiring both agencies to utilize a common reporting system so that
information can be more easily shared between them.

In addition, it is recommended that the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation, in its Uniform Crime Eeports, requests the state agencies to

170

identify marihuana cases separately from narcotic cases and report
them as a separate component.

RECOMMENDATION : THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF NAR-
COTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS SHOULD INCREASE
ITS TRAINING PROGRAMS OF STATE AND LOCAL POLICE
WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE TRAINING IN THE
DETECTION OF TRAFFICKING CASES.

The Commission's interviews with state and local police officials re-
vealed a consistent desire to upgrade the quality of their investiga-
tions. Since the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
through its National Training Institute, has been performing this
task well, it is recommended that the funds be granted by the Con-
gress to extend the range of the educational program offered and
increase the number of persons trained.

RECOMMENDATION : INCREASED BORDER SURVEIL-
LANCE. A TIGHTENING OF BORDER PROCEDURES, AND
A REALISTIC ERADICATION PROGRAM TO DIMINISH
THE SUPPLY OF DRUGS COMING INTO THE COUNTRY,
COUPLED WITH A MORE EFFECTIVE PROGRAM FOR DI-
MINISHING THE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION AND DISTRI-
BUTION OF MARIHUANA, ARE REQUIRED.

The Commission, as part of its mandate, studied drug trafficking
patterns along the borders of the United States. An analysis of border
marihuana seizures was also made. The results of both studies indi-
cated that proportionately larger seizures were made along the bor-
ders at locations where there were no manned checkpoints. The Com-
mission therefore recommends that more vigorous effort be made by
federal agencies to interdict smugglers along the entire border while
continuing their efforts at the formal checkpoints.

In discussions with representatives of other countries, a common ob-
servation made by foreign officials has been this country's somewhat
indifferent attitude about the eradication of our home-grown mari-
huana. an attitude that is not appreciated by other countries under
pressure from the LTiited States to destroy their crops. Since this Ad-
ministration has wisely made illicit trafficking in all drugs a foreign
policy priority, we recommend that priority be supported by an equally
assiduous effort to eradicate marihuana within our borders.

We recommend further that preclearance procedures be eliminated
so that Customs personnel may more effectively control smuggling of
marihuana and other drugs. Preclearance is a procedure whereby pas-
sengers and their baggage destined for the United States are inspected
by U.S. Customs, Immigration and Agriculture officials prior to
departure from a foreign location. This practice is in effect in Ber-

171

muda, Montreal, Nassau, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg and the
Virgin Islands. Other locations are petitioning for the same privilege.

An inherent weakness in the preclearance procedure is that Cus-
toms personnel stationed outside the United States have no authority
for search, seizure and arrest. This fact is well-known to the profes-
sional smuggler who uses it to his advantage. Since we have been
informed that preclearance creates a gap in Customs’ interdiction
process, reason dictates that the procedure be eliminated in the interest
of tighter control.

II. State

RECOMMENDATION : ALL STATES SHOULD ADOPT THE
UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO ACHIEVE
UNIFORMITY WITH REGARD TO MARIHUANA AND
OTHER DRUG LAWS, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE
LEGAL RESPONSE TO POSSESSION FOR ONE’S OWN USE
BE UNIFORMLY ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR
RECOMMENDATION IN CHAPTER V OF THIS REPORT.

As noted earlier, one of the greatest needs in the entire drug area is
uniformity of state laws with regard to structure and penalties. While
this recommendation applies to all drugs and not just marihuana, we
feel it essential to make this recommendation now to help deemphasize
the marihuana problem. Significant differences in penalties among the
states constitute a valid source of irritation and conflict among various
segments of our population. In an age of high mobility, it is uncon-
scionable that penalties should vary so greatly in response to the same
behavior.

RECOMMENDATION: EACH STATE SHOULD ESTAB-
LISH A CENTRALIZED COMPULSORY REPORTING AND
RECORD-KEEPING AUTHORITY SO THAT ADEQUATE
AND ACCUEATE STATISTICS OF AEEESTS, SENTENCES
AND CONVICTIONS ON A STATEWIDE BASIS ARE
AVAILABLE.

Several states have systems for maintaining records of drug arrests
on a statewide basis. Accurate reporting and compilation of these cases
permit the state to assess accurately the impact of law enforcement on
drug offenders. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of
the Department of Justice should assist the states to establish compul-
sory statistical reporting centers so that individual state needs are met
and a clearer picture of the national trends can be ascertained. Effi-
cient state record-keeping will have an additional benefit of increas-
ing the reliability of the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.

172

RECOMMENDATION : THOSE STATES REQUIRING PHY-
SICIANS TO REPORT DRUG USERS SEEKING MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE SHOULD CHANGE SUCH REQUIREMENTS
TO INSURE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE DRUG
USER’S IDENTITY, SO THAT PERSONS NEEDING MEDI-
CAL HELP WILL FEEL FREE TO SEEK IT.

Seventeen states* currently require physicians to report to a gov-
ernment agency information on those persons treated by them who
are dependent on, or are habitual users of drugs. No common pattern
emerges among these states.

After reviewing these statutes, the Commission believes that the
disadvantages of maintaining such reporting systems outweigh the
benefits to society or the individual. Fear of disclosure to the police
discourages many persons from seeking needed medical help. Further-
more, the requirement makes the physician an informant and an agent
of law enforcement.

While a need exists for reliable statistics regarding the number
and nature of those persons being treated, the Commission does not
feel that identification of the individual user is necessary. We again
emphasize that society should encourage persons in need of medical
attention to seek out authorized practitioners without having to fear
legal repercussions for such action.

III. International

RECOMMENDATION : IF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD
BECOME A SIGNATORY OF THE PROPOSED PSYCHO-
TROPIC CONVENTION, WE RECOMMEND THAT CANNA-
BIS BE REMOVED FROM THE EXISTING SINGLE
CONVENTION AND CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO LIST-
ING IT IN THE PSYCHOTROPIC CONVENTION AMONG
DRUGS WHICH HAVE SIMILAR EFFECTS.

Under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, of which
the United States became a signatory in 1967, cannabis, with the ex-
ception of its leaves and stems, is included with narcotic drugs and
cocaine. While that categorization had some justification in 1961 when
knowledge about marihuana was more limited, this justification no
longer exists. More importantly, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the
psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, is not included in the Single Con-
vention and is proposed for inclusion in the Psychotropic Convention.

The Commission sees little sense in having the potent psychoactive
ingredient in cannabis covered in one Convention and the natural

♦California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, NewT York, North Carolina, Penn-
sylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington.

173

product in another. Logic dictates combining the active ingredient
with the plant form under one international control scheme. The Com-
mission concludes that cannabis is more appropriately included in an
international agreement which would control the hallucinogens, stimu-
lants, depressants, and other drugs rather than in the Single Conven-
tion, which includes the narcotics and cocaine.

Medical Recommendations

I. Research Coordination and Emphasis

RECOMMENDATION: FULLER COORDINATION OF THE
MARIHUANA RESARCH CONDUCTED RY^GOVERNMEN-
TAL AND PRIVATE AGENCIES IS NEEDED TO REDUCE
thFduplicationIi ADIVERSITY

OF NEW APPROACHES AND NEW OBJECTIVES, AND TO
PROVIDE EFFICIENT INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS INTO
THE AVAILABLE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE.

^ The Commission recognizes the need for studies of chronic, heavy
users of marihuana in this country. Among the required areas of in-
formation are the user’s sociologic background (family dynamics,
social stresses, impact of socioeconomic status), and medical status
(documentation of physiological and psychological parameters, in-
cluding pulse rate, blood pressure, electro-cardiogram, electroenceph-
alogram, mental status examination, psychological tests). Epidemio-
logical studies are also needed. Sucly studies should be directed toward
, understanding the life histories of chronic, heavy users, and identify-
ing the effects of marihuana on the life patterns of these individuals.

ThUCfonmis^ that intensive research be conducted

on the carcinogenic properties of the components of marihuana smoke,
in both animals and man. Further work should be conducted to analyze
the effect of marihuana smoking on pulmonary function. The Com-
mission-sponsored study in Boston and the study of heavy long-term
users in Jamaica both indicated there was some decrement in meas-
urable lung function capacity.

In addition to these physiological studies, investigations on the ef-
fects of marihuana-smoking on the bronchial epithelium and mucous
membranes of the mouth, throat and lips should be undertaken. The
relationship of marihuana, smoking to cardiac diseases, particularly
coronary artery disease, should be studied. Although such studies have
been conducted in connection with tobacco use, they have not been
performed on a significant scale with regard to marihuana use.

Some clinical investigators have voiced concern regarding the
effect of marihuana-smoking on the peripheral vascular system. In
order to accomplish the initial phase of this investigation, the Corn-

174

mission recommends that thermographic studies be carried out on
extremities of chronic, heavy marihuana users.

There are many unanswered questions about the effects of marihuana
upon the brain. These include reported alterations upon the neuronal
systems which produce effects resembling those of both psychedelic
drugs and alcohol. Studies of the biogenic amines which appear to be
neurotransmitters in the emotional areas of the brain are needed.

The Commission in the course of its work has encouraged coopera-
tion among various federal agencies concerned with marihuana. Con-
tinuing and formalized informational exchange among federal agen-
cies and the state, local and private agencies which have a professional
concern with marihuana can be helpful to all of them. We recommend
that an appropriate federal agency, such as the Special Action Office
for Drug Abuse Prevention in the White House, serve as the catalyst
in developing a permanent program for assembling and exchanging
marihuana-related information.

II. Detection of Marihuana in the Human Body

EECOMMENDATION : EESEAECH EFFOETS TO DE-
VELOP AN INEXPENSIVE, EASY METHOD FOE DETECT-
ING AND QUANTIFYING THE PEESENCE OF MAEI-
HUANA IN THE BLOOD, BREATH OR URINE OF A PERSON Jjj
SUSPECTED OF BEING INTOXICATED SHOULD BE
ACCELERATED.

In keeping with the necessity to detect and punish persons who
are operating vehicles and other dangerous equipment under the in-
fluence of marihuana, it is important for law enforcement officials to
have a swift, easy-to-use mechanism that will determine with a high
degree of certainty whether the person is acting under the influence
of marihuana. The Commission understands that the Department of
Transportation and other federal agencies are working toward this
goal and we strongly recommend that this research be continued as
a priority item.

III. International Cooperation

EECOMMENDATION : AN ACCELEEATED PEOGEAM
FOE FUNDING FOEEIGN EESEAECH SHOULD BE UNDEE-
TAKEN IMMEDIATELY.

For the purposes of definitive research on the effects of heavy and
very heavy marihuana use, the Commission has found that the United
States fortunately does not have significant numbers of people who
have been exposed over a long period of time to such use. The National
Institute of Mental Health has cooperated with the Commission in

175

supplying data from its major foreign studies of chronic cannabis
users in Jamaica and Greece. For medical research purposes, an
analysis of data derived from populations in other countries with 10,
20 or 30 years of experience with heavy marihuana use will provide
useful information about probable consequences if the incidence of
marihuana use in the United States were to continue and increase, and
if more people engaged in heavy, long-term use.

IV. Therapeutic Uses

RECOMMENDATION: INCREASED SUPPORT OF STUD-
IES WHICH EVALUATE THE EFFICACY OF MARIHUANA
IN THE TREATMENT OF PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENTS AND
DISEASE Ts^ECOMMENDE^ " — *

Historical references have been noted throughout the literature
referring to the use of cannabis products as therapeutically useful
agents. Of particular significance for current research with controlled
quality, quantity and therapeutic settings, would be investigations
into the treatment of glaucoma, migraine, alcoholism and terminal
cancer. The NIMH-FDA Psychotomimetic Advisory Committee’s
authorization of studies designed to explore the therapeutic uses of
marihuana is commended.

V. Community-Based Treatment

RECOMMENDATION : COMMUNITY-BASED TREAT-

MENT FACILITIES SHOULD BE PROMOTED IN CARING
FOR PROBLEM DRUG USERS UTILIZING EXISTING
HEALTH CENTERS WHEN POSSIBLE AND APPROPRIATE.

In studying marihuana, the Commission has obtained information
about a number of treatment centers and services. The wide range of
agencies and the variety of goals and techniques present a confusing
array of services available to drug users, varying widely in their
effectiveness. Uniform criteria for evaluating the “success” of these
programs is urgently needed.

The medical members of the Commission believe that some of the
techniques being used may pose as much potential harm as good.
Many young people who are experiencing profound difficulties re-
sulting from the use of drugs may suppose they are being treated
and helped, when in reality they are not. In some cases, the short-term
benefit may be disruptive to the long-term welfare of the individual.
In the rush to provide treatment facilities, many programs have been
given impressive credentials without meeting minimal medical stand-
ards. It is essential that treatment facilities have, as their primary
orientation, the well-being of the individual under treatment.

176

VI. Training Programs

RECOMMENDATION: PUBLIC HEALTH COURSES ON //
THE SOCIAL ASPECTS OF DRUG USE SHOULD BE IN-
CLUDED IN THE CURRICULA OF THE SCHOOLS OF THE
HEALTH PROFESSIONS.

The Commission recommends that schools of the health professions
include in their curricula courses on the social, public health and
therapeutic aspects of drug use as appropriate to the educational pur-
pose of the individual school. The National Survey indicated that the
public views the family physician as an important source of informa-
tion about drugs. Next to school personnel, physicians were mentioned
most often in this connection. Persons involved in the health profes-
sions must be provided with information about non-medical as well as
the medical aspects of drug use.

Other Recommendations

I. Reclassification of Cannabis

RECOMMENDATION: THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES
THAT SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE IMPROP-
ERLY CLASSIFIED MARIHUANA AS A NARCOTIC, AND
RECOMMENDS THAT THEY NOW REDEFINE MARI-
HUANA ACCORIMNG^TCJ^THE STANDARDS OF THE
RECENTLY ADOPTED UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUB-
STANCES LAW. =

Scientific evidence has clearly demonstrated that marihuana is not a
narcotic drug, and the law should properly reflect this fact. Congress
so recognized in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Con-
trol Act of 1970, as did The Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws in the LTiif orm Controlled Substances Law.

In those states where the Uniform Controlled Substances Law has
not yet been adopted, twelve of which continue to classify marihuana
as a “narcotic”, the Commission recommends that the legislatures dis-
tinguish marihuana from the opiates and list it in a separate category.
The consequence of inappropriate definition is that the public con-
tinues to associate marihuana with the narcotics, such as heroin. The
confusion resulting from this improper classification helps to perpetu-
ate prejudices and misinformation about marihuana.

II. Information

RECOMMENDATION: A SINGLE FEDERAL AGENCY
SOURCE SHOULD DISSEMINATE INFORMATION AND

177

MATERIALS RELATING TO MARIHUANA AND OTHER
DRUGS. THE NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR DRUG
ABUSE INFORMATION SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH
THIS RESPONSIBILITY.

A great proliferation of drug information materials has occurred
in recent years. These materials are currently distributed by a num-
ber of federal agencies. Some of these materials conflict with each
other. The result is a confusion and uncertainty on the part of the pub-
lic about the accuracy of all these statements. The public should have
one federal source from which to obtain drug information. The Na-
tional Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information appears best suited
to perform this task.

III. Education

RECOMMENDATION: THE SPECIAL ACTION OFFICE
FOR DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION IN THE WHITE HOUSE
SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATION,
DEVELOPMENT AND CONTENT REVIEW OF ALL FEDER-
ALLY-SUPPORTED DRUG EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
AND SHOULD ISSUE A REPORT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE,
EVALUATING EXISTING DRUG EDUCATION MATERIALS.

The Commission has studied many programs of drug education
throughout the country. Some are irrelevant, others are poorly de-
signed, still others are misleading, and a good many of them are of
questionable value. A few are excellent. The Federal Government must
provide assistance to the states and school districts in this matter, and
should provide the leadership in developing sample programs in co-
operation with educational systems. An evaluation of existing pro-
grams by The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention of the
White House could be very helpful in improving the standards of drug
education.

IV. Voluntary Sector Participation

RECOMMENDATION: THE COMMISSION NOTES THE
SIGNIFICANT ROLE PLAYED BY THE VOLUNTARY SEC-
TOR OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY IN INFLUENCING
THE SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS AND MORAL ATTITUDES OF
OUR NATION’S CITIZENS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE
VOLUNTARY SECTOR BE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE AN
ACTIVE ROLE IN SUPPORT OF OUR RECOMMENDED
POLICY OF DISCOURAGING THE USE OF MARIHUANA.

Already very active in drug education and prevention activities, the
social agencies, service clubs, church groups, and other non-govern-

178

mental bodies have been extremely helpful in attending to the difficult
problems of drug abuse. The local and personal nature of such orga-
nizations gives them an advantage over state and federal governments
in the development of attitudes by our citizens.

The policy which we here recommend, indeed any policy which
might be recommended, will inevitably encounter widespread and
earnest objections. The fullest efforts of all citizens of good will will
be required to attend to the massive problem of drug abuse in a calm,
just, responsible and effective manner. The help of the voluntary agen-
cies in working toward this end is earnestly invited and urgently
needed.

179

Contributors and Contractors

Freda Adler, Ph. D.

Department of Psychiatry
Temple University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Robert L. Bogomolny
School of Law

Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas

John K. Boyer
Attorney

Fraser, Stryker, Marshall and Veach
Omaha, Nebraska

Richard Brotman, Ph. D.

Department of Psychiatry
New York Medical College
New York, New York

James Carey, Ph. D.

Department of Sociology
University of Illinois
Chicago, Illinois

Neil Chayet
Attorney
Chayet & Flash
Boston, Massachusetts

Susan Cooper
Attorney

Stanford, California

Thomas Decker
Deputy Director
Federal Defender Program
U.S. District Court
Chicago, Illinois

Louise Epps, Ph. D.

Department of Psychiatry
School of Medicine
University of California
Los Angeles, California

Vincent R. Fitzpatrick
Attorney

New York, New York

Ira M. Frank, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry
School of Medicine
University of California
Los Angeles, California

Israel Gerver

John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
New York, New York

Erich Goode, Ph. D.

Department of Sociology
State University of New York
Stony Brook, New York

J. Dean Heller
Attorney
Washington, D.C.

InTech Corp.

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

Institute for Survey Research of
Temple University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Weldon T. Johnson, Ph. D.
Department of Sociology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

Louis L. Judd, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry
School of Medicine
University of California
San Diego, California

William H. McGlothlin, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology
University of California
Los Angeles, California

180

Jane Lang McGrew
Attorney

Step toe and Johnson
Washington, D.C.

Andrew Silverman
School of Law
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

Gerald Marwell, Ph. D.
Department of Sociology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

Alexander B. Smith, Ph. D.

John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
New York, New York

Jack H. Mendelson, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts

Roger E. Meyer, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts

Harriet Pollock, Ph. D.

John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
New York, New York

Stanley Renshon

Office of the Dean of Residential Life
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Herbert I. Abelson, Ph. D.

Response Analysis Corporation
Princeton, New Jersey

Gerald L. Robinson
Dean of Residential Life
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

A. Michael Rossi, Ph. D.

Department of Psychiatry
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts

Philip C. Sagi, Ph. D.

Department of Sociology
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Salk Institute

Council for Biology in Human Affairs
La Jolla, California

Geoffrey R. W. Smith
Attorney
Washington, D.C.

Frederic Sufifet, M.A.

Division of Community Mental Health
New York Medical College
New York, New York

Jared R. Tinklenberg, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, California

Michael R. Vaughan
Director of Legislative Attorneys
Madison, Wisconsin

Salamuddin Weiss, M.D.

Kabul University Medical School
Kabul, Afghanistan

Stephen Weitzman
Attorney

Kennedy and Leighton
Washington, D.C.

Martin Weitzner, Ph. D.

John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
New York, New York

Westat Research Corporation
Rockville, Maryland

Charles H. Whitebread, II
School of Law
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia

Robert W. Winslow, Ph. D.
Department of Sociology
San Diego State College
San Diego, California

181

Consultants

Michael H. Beaubrun, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry
School of Medicine
University of the West Indies
Kingston, Jamaica, W.I.

Wilson Bishai, Ph. D.

Department of Arabic
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Bertram Brown, M.D.

Director

National Institute of Mental Health
Washington, D.C.

Stuart L. Brown, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry, School of
Medicine

University of California
San Diego, California

Eleanor E. Carroll

National Institute of Mental Health
Washington, D.C.

John Cohrssen
Attorney

Arlington, Virginia

Lambrose Comitas, Ph. D.

Department of Anthropology
Columbia University
New York, New York

Candace Cowan

Attorney, Office of the General Counsel
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs

Washington, D.C.

David Deitch

Department of Psychiatry, School of
Medicine

University of California
San Diego, California

Rhea Dornbush, Ph. D.

Department of Psychiatry
New York Medical College
New York, NewT York

Charles Edwards, M.D.

Commissioner

Food and Drug Administration
Washington, D.C.

Gerald Edwards, Ed. D.

Health & Physical Education Dept.
Adelphi University
Garden City, New York

Sanford Feinglass, Ph. D.

Research Foundation — Drug Abuse
Training Center
California State College
Hayward, California

Belton M. Fleisher, Ph. D.
Department of Economics
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Donald K. Fletcher

Smith Kline & French Laboratories

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Max Fink, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry
New York Medical College
New York, New York

Robert T. Harris, Ph. D.

Texas Research Institute of Mental
Sciences
Houston, Texas

John Holt

Eli Lilly and Company
Indianapolis, Indiana

Peter Barton Hutt
Assistant General Counsel
Food and Drug Administration
Washington, D.C.

182

John E. Ingersoll
Director

Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs

Washington, D.C.

Jerome Jaffe, M.D.

Director, Special Action Office for
Drug Abuse Prevention
White House
Washington, D.C.

James Jones
Attorney
Washington, D.C.

Glen R. Kipplinger, M.D.

Lilly Laboratory for Clinical Research
Indianapolis, Indiana

Alexander H. Leighton, M.D.
Department of Behavioral Sciences
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Norman V. Lourie
Department of Public Welfare
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Arnold J. Mandell, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry, School of
Medicine

University of California
San Diego, California

Todd H. Mikuriya, M.D.

Gladman Memorial Hospital
Oakland, California

J. Lars G. Nilsson
Apotekarsocieteten
Stockholm, Sweden

Kjell Ohlson, Ph. D.

Department of Sociology
University of Gothenberg
Gothenberg, Sweden

Joseph C. Paige, Dean
Community Education
Federal City College
Washington, D.C.

Mario Perez-Reyes, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry
University of North Carolina School
of Medicine

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Robert C. Petersen, Ph. D.

National Institute of Mental Health
Washington, D.C.

Robert G. Pinco
Attorney, Office of the General
Counsel

Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs

Washington, D.C.

Robert Pitchell, Ph. D.

National University Extension As-
sociation
Washington, D.C.

Alan Ramsey, M.D.

National Institute of Mental Health
Washington, D.C.

Joe F. Ray
Retired

Bureau of Customs
Texas

Vera Rubin, Ph. D.

Research Institute for the Study of
Man

New York, New York

John A. Scigliano, Ph. D.

Food and Drug Administration
Washington, D.C.

Jerome Skolnick, Ph. D.

Center for the Study of Law and
Sociology

University of California
Berkeley, California

Soloman M. Snyder, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry and Phar-
macology

Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine
Baltimore, Maryland

183

Costas Stefanis, M.D.

Department of Psychiatry
School of Medicine
University of Athens
Athens, Greece

Jesse Steinfeld, M.D.

Surgeon General

Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare

Washington, D.C.

Stephen Szara, M.D.

National Institute of Mental Health
Washington, D.C.

Richard P. Wakefield

National Institutes of Mental Health

Washington, D.C.

Marvin Wolfgang, Ph. D.
Department of Sociology
University o<f Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

184

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :I972 0-456-964

NIH Library. BuiWing 10
Nationai liiM.iutes of Health

Betbesda, Md. 2020 5

• LIBRARY

Amazing Help.

http://nihlibrary.nih.gov

10 Center Drive
Bethesda, MD 20892-1150
301-496-1080

NIH LIBRARY

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Marihuana: a signal of misunderstanding; first report"

See other formats